12.11.07

Elections Update

At least according to the official version(s), the front runners in the Primaries are Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

Pat Robertson, another excess father of the American evangelism, is endorsing Mr. Giuliani, despite having so little in common.

Watching on Tim Russert's Meet the Press how Mr. Obama was pussy-footing about Mrs. Clinton's gaps can only make one think that Obama is merely VP-material, especially considering the high stakes of the next presidential elections in the US.

Whatever/whomever is pushing Mrs. Clinton ahead in in her party's Primaries must be doing the same for Giuliani. Indeed, the damn stakes are too high to allow someone who's not a NY-insider into the White House. Giuliani can be cast into the stone that hits either bird for the no-surprise establishment.

Test: How come that a folk that hardly comes together on so many issues has already agreed that it is experience that separates the two contenders for a Democratic Party White House?

Lieberman hits out at ‘paranoid’ Democrats

Joe Lieberman, CT Senator, has this much to say about the state of affairs in his former party:

The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a “hyper-partisan, politically paranoid” liberal base that could endanger the final nominee’s chances of winning next year’s presidential election.

He argued that George W. Bush and the Republican presidential candidates remained truer than the Democratic party to its tradition of a “moral, internationalist, liberal and hawkish” foreign policy that was established by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

“The Democratic party I grew up in was unafraid to make moral judgements about the world beyond our borders.”

“[Today’s Democrats] are inclined to see international problems as a result of America’s engagement with the world and are viscerally opposed to the use of force – the polar opposite to the self-confident and idealistic nationalism of the party I grew up in.”

“Even as the evidence has mounted that General David Petraeus is succeeding in Iraq, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in the narrative of defeat.”

“The Democrats’ guiding principle is distrust and disdain for Republicans in general and for Mr Bush in particular.”

Mr Lieberman, would prefer Ms Clinton to become the Democratic nominee.

7.10.07

privatize profit and socialize loss

Matt Stoller, a blogger with Open Left, comes up with the a very good classification of those claiming business-driven political orientations:
There are roughly two cultural parts of the business community. One is the “managerial” sector, the corporate group that took power during the Reaganite era and is basically illiberal in orientation. These are the people who are running companies like General Motors into the ground of out fealty to ideological right-wing class solidarity. … These people are becoming independents or depoliticized. Their ideas don’t work, and their very identities as masters of the universe is shown as a sad and tragic lifelong fraud …

The second group is “entrepreneurial” in culture, not large and corporate. This is the group that sees new industries in green technology, and will swing to a liberal model of governance … This sector is where our new governance models are going to come from, though the political piece is really our job and the policy details will come from emerging public spiritedness in academia. Building the bridges between the business left and the open left is going to take 20 years, but it’s starting to happen.
The practicality of this classification comes from both its predictive-, and ideology-b.s. detecting-capabilities. So many anti-capitalist, state-interventionists for business ends, demagogues call themselves as being pro-business and anti-government that it makes one wonder. The answer is simple: privatize profit and socialize loss, the rest is ideology.

Also, check out the comments to Matt's blog from NYT!

13.9.07

principled vs. politiko

In 2004, I thought Howard Dean should have had the chance to win over the US-presidential contest. He was a doctor and governor, albeit of a smaller state, who not only said that going into Iraq was a mistake, but also saw it as an achievable objective to reduce the growth rate of the federal government medical liabilities from 10% to 6% a year. His Iowa scream was so much blown out of any proportion that John Kerry followed him as the best face on a Democratic comeback.

I had grown to like Kerry and hoped he'd win. Then we had to whole presidential election being decided by the Ohio vote, or so most of us thought/saw. Several reports about vote-irregularities came up, after (while?) Kerry hastily conceded to the official count, in Ohio. This did not feel right and left many unanswered questions about the whole Kerry candidacy.

In retrospect, Kerry's indecisively countering the swift-boat allegations is at odds with his principled positions during the Vietnam War. Yeah, he conveniently had the Shrum-curse to fall on for the swift-boat episode, but that should have been a personal matter rather than political maneuvering and calculation for somebody like him.

As for Kerry's flip-flopping on the Iraq War, one should only ask: Why is it that people look at this as a relief of sorts for his fall? At least, one can argue that opinions change with the facts or evidence.

The latest straw, which also broke Kerry's moral high ground, came with the occasion of the Senate debates on taxing private equity funds that go IPO. Why is it that Kerry (and Schumer, for that matter) are not in favor of such tax? Is it revealing of principled action or the true nature of the politiko?


September 18, 2007

Here's another angle on the whole Kerry affair:

Barack Obama's 2002 Speech

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

10.7.07

On Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is emerging as the favorite in the GOP race for the White House. Except that he's got to overcome 3 issues:
1) His flip-flopping - he used to be a very reasonable politician for most in the middle, but switched (maybe) in order to win the GOP primaries.
2) His support for president Bush's policy in Iraq - John McCain, just like all major GOP candidates, has to understand that his support for Bush('s war) is costing him more than his poor choice of campaign staff.
3) His being at one time a corporate vulture - this is relevant in the context of the Left coming strong with messages about income fairness and similar topics that don't go well with part of Romney's non-political professional background.

As for the Romney's religion I think that
a) He's only got to overcome the resistance coming from the GOP base. In other words, if he wins the GOP nomination, his religion won't stay an issue.
b) If anything, it is us, the electorate, who have to make his religion a non-issue. This way we'd do ourselves a big service.

Presidential hope-fool
what's wrong with limo-populists

Have a look at this John Edward's photo, taken by Annie Leibovitz and published in Vogue.

What is the presidential candidate doing? Hammering a nail on what seems to be a fiber cement plank.

Maybe someone should have told John that hammering nails in materials other than wood is a problem - the material cracks if hit by the hammer.

The recommended tool for such job is a pneumatic hammer, but of course that may not look manly enough for John.

22.6.07

Mis·under·estimates

George Bush has taken us places, yet no major talk about return. "Major" as in the candidates for presidency and such. This guy has lowered our expectations of him so much that progress in ANY direction would seem just providential.

By the way, do you recall how NYTimes told us in his tame years not to misunderestimate him? I think we are way beyond the endearment phase, even at NYTimes, so let's get real for a moment.

From all that he's got us into, what do you think it will come to an end by 2009? Positive end, that is.

I'm gonna play contrarian here and say that his best chance is for peace between Israel and Abbas' Palestine.

I so love my orange
our rich are richer than theirs

A few days ago none other than Michael Chertoff, the guy in charge with the levels of security, told the Congress that unless the immigration law was passed we would not have food on the tables. Learning his advertisement, I had the vision of a reverse-Exodus, thinking of anyone opposing he bill as some latter-day pharaoh.

Now, for those a little more traveled than President Bush it may come as no surprise that food in general sells for about the same price in the US as in most any developed country; alas, regardless of the number of immigrants in the fields. The argument goes that in the US immigrants work for less in jobs that no local wants. The "work for less" is a given, but the question becomes: Where does the difference between the sale price and the lower cost of labor goes in the US?

Oops, what levels is Mr. Chertoff in charge with, again?

Why does it take so long?

For some strange reason, Al Gore is today's hero for so many--more than in 2000 to be sure, anyway. For some he's just the lesser between two bad choices, for most he's the planet savior. For the latter category I have the following question: What had Al Gore done about environment during his 8 years at the Naval Observatory, star gazing? To put things in context, that was the time The Big 3 from Detroit put on the road the SUVs and gas went for just under $1/gallon. Not that the Detroit proxies for "what's good for America" need any more blame, but at least the alleged "brainiac" should be told that, in part, he squandered it.

If you think you got my point, think again. To just put down Gore like this would be way too easy. Go on to the next paragraph!

Judging by "The New American Story" Bill Bradley would make an outstanding public servant. The question is why has it taken him 7 years after running for president and leaving public office that we are given to know he's got not only a brain but also conscience?

The cost of war
The cost of voting our guts

Are we stuck with the bill for Bush's tardive curiosity about foreign countries with several decades of hardship? One can make a case that it took the US until 1992 to pay off for Vietnam. How long and what will it take now?

21.6.07

Immigration reform
'cause human reform ain't

Going west has always been an American escape. As we ran out of geography, "going west" became the suburbs. Today we have immigration. So many problems are solved by immigration, so little care is given to what we are and have here and now--just like our forebears who were leaving behind the problems of their day.

20.6.07

What can it be?

Very few characters from history make it into public consciousness to the point they are associated with a category. Indeed, you see one of Einstein's photos and associate it immediately to concepts like unconventional(l y smart).

Today, President Bush vetoed a measure promoting embryonic stem cell research, stating: "I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

I wonder not about what he knows about morality, but of the time the image of his face will stand for something, and what that something may be.

Blog Archive