Comments Posted By Postagoras
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 55 Comments
OBAMA IS FUMBLING HIS FIRST SNAP FROM CENTER
I did a piece last week on Obama’s first few days in office and was rightly chastised by some who thought it a bit premature to be judging the performance of a president who had been in office for so short a time.
Yeah, so bite me.
I'm getting the notion that this is not one of your "high minded" essays.
In truth, the “Stimulus Package” may be slipping under the bus – at least the package in its present incarnation.
Well duh. The Democratic majority in the House crafted a bill, and so did the Democratic majority in the Senate. The House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill, and then it goes to committee for reconciliation. The President, meanwhile, is triangulating between all the parties, including (gasp!) the Republicans. This is not throwing it under the bus... this is how Congress works, for better or for worse. I guess you have an issue regarding understanding of Congress.
Clearly, the White House has lost control of the process in Congress as support among the public plummets; only 42% now support the stimulus down from the mid-50’s last week. The White House PR strategy is obviously failing.
Sorry, Rick, but you have no clue as to what the White House strategy is. You see a bill that you think is bad, and I agree... it's larded up with unnecessary stuff. And it's the kind of bill that is easy to demagogue against... there's something in it for EVERYONE to hate. Now, if President Obama is stupid, then he will use up all his Bully Pulpit chits on getting it passed just the way that Pelosi and Reid want it. But maybe, just maybe, that's NOT his goal.
I agree that "the new Administration is feeling its way in Congress." But having a Democratic majority and a Democratic President does not mean that they will be anywhere CLOSE to lockstep.
Sorry if this comment was too high-minded. I know that you get annoyed if the comments don't match the tone of your post. I tried.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 2.02.2009 @ 13:17
IF GOVERNMENT MAKES LIFE EASIER, DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER?
Great post, Rick.
I think that we are too cocooned in the USA... but it's difficult to promote an old-fashioned concept such as "grit" to people whose dinner comes from a logistical supply chain that stretches over the whole world. Many aspects of our lives promote this cocooning, and it becomes easier and easier to be satisfied as the cog in the wheel, while complaining about the unfairness of it all.
This is the fundamental balancing act of a government... we want to enable people to come up with new solutions on their own, and the capitalist market system is a great motivator for that... but it is ruthless, and inevitably ends up with concentrated wealth and power (i.e. monopolies). The adversity generated by the ruthless market will inspire some to create new ideas... but for others it will be ghastly. However, once government steps in to oversee, it's damn hard to get them out.
The political problem is that it's easy to demagogue these issues. "Government is taking your money and wasting it." "Big business is giving their executives millions and your real salary went down last year." Often, as you say, the government needs to be involved. And often, an executive DESERVES to make millions. But making a reasoned explanation after an incendiary charge doesn't work in the sound-bite world we live in.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 29.01.2009 @ 10:35
THOUGHTS ON OBAMA'S FIRST WEEK: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
Wow, Rick, the four-day evaluation. I'm totally anticipating your next assessment on Friday... and I'm sure that eight days from now you'll be able to give us the historical perspective on the Obama Presidency. By then you might be able to stretch it out, give the assessments once a week.
Reportedly, Obama waited for Cantor to finish and then said, simply “I won.” Obama’s two word put down trumped the discussion. (Glenn Reynolds points out that if George Bush had tried something like that, he would have been considered arrogant.)
Well, that *is* arrogant.
The entire inaugural was a disaster area.
Disaster area?? That's one of the funniest things you've ever written. Dude, these ceremonies always end up validating whatever ideas you brought with you. You've shown yours.
There was the ugly scene in the press room on Wednesday night where Obama became irritated when a reporter asked a question he didn’t like.
This is pretty much a lie. It wasn't a situation where Obama was answering questions until he was asked one that he didn't like. His intention, as he stated it, was to come down and introduce himself to the press. Of all the reporters there, one decided to repeatedly ask a question. I think it's pretty funny that Obama got irritated, though. I mean, these are REPORTERS. You could've made your point without the added spin.
Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the decision to close Guantánamo by a year from now “places hope ahead of reality—it sets an objective without a plan to get there.” I would add that it places atmospherics ahead of common sense—a bad sign for any presidency, but especially one where the new chief executive has so little experience on national security issues.
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth." President John F. Kennedy, 1961.
Boy, what a dope. (sarcasm alert)
Americans supported the Mexico City Policy by more than 2-1. It is a good policy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it prevented overly zealous groups from promoting abortion as a means of birth control in poor countries. This is an inherently racist attitude as it attaches less worth to babies of color than white babies. It also saved the lives of countless women who would have been exposed to dangerous procedures performed in less than ideal facilities from a medical point of view.
Americans may have responded to a poll by 2-1, but they also responded to another poll called the ballot box. But let's not be arrogant.
As far as saving the lives of women who would be exposed to dangerous procedures in less than ideal facilities... that is very hard to measure. And it resulted in some women getting an abortion in a even less than ideal facility. Again, a very hard number to measure. You are saying that it's bad if a woman dies getting an abortion in a clinic funded by US aid. I agree. But I thinks it's also bad if a woman dies getting an abortion in somebody's basement, because the clinic had to turn her away. And the chances of death are higher in the second case.
Finally, Obama made his first really dumb political move when he picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh, telling GOP senators that they shouldn’t listen to the talk show host and get on board with his stimulus package.
Obama broke the first rule of political gunslinging: never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel—or in the case of Rush Limbaugh, someone with 23 million daily listeners and 3 hours every day with which to make you look like an idiot.
Obama doesn't really care about Limbaugh's 23 million daily listeners, or what Limbaugh says about him... that wasn't the point. Limbaugh can rant to his audience all he wants. Obama was telling the Republicans in Congress that if they care what Limbaugh says, they will have exactly 23 million votes... which will not be good news for the Republican party.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 26.01.2009 @ 22:51
DAVID FRUM, THE BIG TENT, AND SPLENETIC CONSERVATIVES
By the way, the Frum quote is discussed at length here:
http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2003/11/dead_right.html
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 23.01.2009 @ 21:01
David Frum said this back in 1994, in his book Dead Right (p. 205):
“Conservatives suffer a very different political problem from liberals these days. Avowed liberals have a difficult time winning power in this country; avowed conservatives do not. You no longer get far in public life by preaching that the poor are poor because someone else is not poor, or that criminals can be rehabilitated, or that American troops should get their orders from the United Nations. There’s no liberal Rush Limbaugh. But exercising power – that is a very different business. When conservatism’s glittering generalities, “you are overtaxed,” turn into legislative specifics, “you must pay more to send your kid to the state university,” we run into as much trouble in midsession as the liberals do at election time. Twelve years of twisting and struggling to escape this snare have just entangled us ever more deeply in it, until we have arrived at the unhappy destination this book describes. Is there a way out? Only one: conservative intellectuals should learn to care a little less about the electoral prospects of the Republican Party, indulge less in policy cleverness and ethnic demagoguery, and do what intellectuals of all descriptions are obliged to do: practice honesty, and pay the price.”
The problem, such as it is, is really that the campaign process allows opportunists of all stripes to sleaze into office. It's our problem- the voters, and the don't-care-to-voters.
A particularly disgusting electoral strategy is the one that paints the government and all associated with it as incompetent and corrupt. Sadly, it's a persistent winner. And since it's used by the most cynical and hypocritical candidates, it's guaranteed to end up with the electorate feeling even more disgusted in the long run... and even more susceptible to the next con man promising to "clean up" the government.
This we have the situation where the public perception of Congress is abysmal... but incumbents get re-elected in droves. Obviously, people believe that it's everyone ELSE'S Congressman who is venal and corrupt.
So we have a situation where con men can use sleazy techniques that principled candidates will not. And enough people are swayed that the con men get elected.
Perhaps you can help, Rick. Can you show the difference between the posturing sellouts and the legislators who get bills passed and things done? They exist in both parties.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 23.01.2009 @ 20:58
RIGHT OR WRONG, BUSH MADE AN IMPACT
But Rick, you did not write "The liberal blogosphere has spent the last 8 years in perpetual derangement over the Bush presidency."
You said it was "The Democrats". And the liberal blogosphere does not equal the Democrats... especially now, when George W. Bush has converted so many Republicans and Independents to Democrats.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 15.01.2009 @ 15:48
I agree with this: "He will almost certainly be ranked in the bottom fifth in any listing of our chief executives."
But this is a flat-out lie: "...the Democrats have spent the last 8 years in perpetual derangement over the Bush presidency."
C'mon Rick... the bottom fifth means that the guy was a lousy President. Perhaps some of that "derangement" was justified??
I sum him up this way: Incurious and decisive.
Always a bad combination in a manager.
Oh Jesus! Are you kidding? DON'T YOU READ FUCKING LIBERAL BLOGS?? They had George Bush responsible for EARTHQUAKEs for God's sake! The paranoid conspiracy mongering among democrats was unbelievable for the last 8 years. Obviously you are just as paranoid, just as deranged as any Democrat which makes your comment idiotic on its face.
ed.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 15.01.2009 @ 15:20
Hey, let's make a mountain out of a molehill.
If, as you and I expect, Hamas spouts off their usual rhetoric, then the conversation will be short.
As has been said before, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. On 1/8/09, in an interview on NPR, Palestinian philosopher Sari Nusseibeh spoke well about the issue. One quote stood out for me: "...we don't seem to have internally, as Palestinians, been very clever at putting together the institutions of the state as we dreamed one day we would be able to."
The Palestinian people were ill-served by the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, and now they have brought Hamas upon themselves. But someday, somewhere, we may find someone who can be crazy and savvy enough to give the Palestinians a vision of a state... but that person's rise is made nearly impossible by the internal factions and the manipulation of the Palestinians by external forces, that is, the Arab States and Israel.
I think it's worth having even a very short conversation with Hamas. It's not like they will gain any credibility by having a channel to the US Government- they have none.
The channels that need to be stopped are the channels that provide Qassam rockets free of charge to Hamas. The cowardly countries that have outsourced their attack on Israel are not the friends of the Palestinians.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 9.01.2009 @ 12:54
Ah, you've gotten the broad brush out again for the New Year. You, Rick, have a singular voice that does not run in lockstep with "the right", or the conservatives, or the Republicans. But "the left", on the other hand, has two bloggers which represent the ideas of many liberals, a extremely homogeneous group. How convenient!
I guess I'd better burn my ACLU card, and get rid of my frequent-flier miles on the UN black helicopters, because I agree with you about Israel's moral right in their current actions in Gaza.
I realize there are many liberals who are as supportive of Israel as I am (many at The New Republic). I tried not to draw too broadly but then, if I had to guess I'd say that 75% of the lefysphere agrees with Greenwald, Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and FDL and numerous pundits at mags like The Nation and American Prospect.
In this case, generalizing a reaction is perhaps more true than in others.
ed.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 3.01.2009 @ 12:47
"The shoe toss was as much an insult directed at the left as it was Bush."
Rick, that is your opinion. It sure looked to me like it was personal for him. I understand that you want to view this through a prism of "leftist idiocy", but give it up.
This story is about one guy, Zaidi, who was pissed off at another guy, George Bush.
Comment Posted By Postagoras On 15.12.2008 @ 12:07
