So you sit down at the end of a long day and you wonder, "I had a long, hard day at work. I wonder what my government did at its long hard day of work?" You flip on the TV to see that their biggest item of a day last week was to vote to "condemn" the ad that Moveon.org placed in the New York Times questioning the (for lack of a better word) trustworthiness of the General. Seriously US Senate? That's the best use of your time? Playing school yard marm to a bunch of squabbling special interest groups? You really don't think that Petreaus has a thick enough skin to not be able to shrug that off?
Oh come on now, let's not be that silly. Of COURSE none of them are worried that he had he feelings hurt. The moment that ad his the presses, no one cared what it really said, and certainly no one cared about how Petreaus felt about the matter. Republicans saw dollar signs. They saw political capital. They saw a way to punish Democrats and divert attention away from a failing war where the majority of the dislike of their party's leader comes from, which they are irrevocably tied to. The General came in to defend them and their actions, and when the Democrats and Democratic affiliated groups questioned whether or not Petreaus was really being up front and entirely honest, backed into a corner they really did the only thing they could do: Play off the public's trust of the military and try to bypass the whole damned argument. Perhaps surprisingly, the one unassailable group in the US are US men and women in uniform. They are treated with respect and honor, not scorn and ridicule as they were during Vietnam. They are almost universally loved and treated with dignity. So I have to wonder why Republicans, seemingly holding the mantle of defenders of the Armed Forces from those wicked Democrats, are using the military as political cannon fodder to run roughshod over Democrats who take issue with their failed policies. Well duh, the answer is easy of course, it's because it's all the Republicans have left! They know they've lost the public's trust, that even though voter confidence in the Congress is below 30%, more than 50% of Americans still think that it's in better hands with the Democrats in charge. Now that is one hell of an insulting number to Republicans.
So with Democrats outraising Republicans by unheard of margins, with the Republicans in a dangerously precarious position for the 2008 Senate elections (a perfect storm of bad timing has left them in a position to lose several more seats), with a president who is wholly out of touch with the American people, and with a war stuck in their laps that no one wants anymore, they did the one thing they had left when the opportunity presented itself: Use the last respected government institution as a ploy to attack Democrats. Because Democrats can't attack the military and get away with it, so if Republicans can manage to manufacture an attack on the military where none exists (via the ad), and then attach the moveon.org ad to Democrats, well then Democrats just attacked the military! We must demand apologies from all of them! We have to force a vote in Senate to get them on record as being for or against the military.
Never mind the fact that the moveon.org ad actually asked a good set of questions. It showed what Petreaus actually says, and then presents known facts that seem to conflict with his not-under-oath testimony. Um, last I checked that was called being a good American, it's called citizenship actually, it's called civilian control of the military, and it's called not being an ignorant fool who drinks the kool-aid. But hey, that's not the type of attitude we want here in America is it? No sir! John McCain, in response to the moveon.org ad said they should be "thrown out of the country." Because hey, there's nothing more American than suppressing political dissidents right? I'm only mildly surprised that Democrats didn't take that particular line and demand an apology from McCain, but I guess the first amendment doesn't ge the same respect the military does.
Does the censure from Congress really mean anything? No. It's a non-binding resolution that has no teeth when it really comes down to it. But there is a moral to this story: Free speech in America is only possible if everyone approves of what you are saying. If they don't approve, they'll shout you down, or they'll make sure you can't get your words printed in the paper, or they'll get Congress to condemn you, or they'll get politicians you support and who support you to disavow you, and everyone who was once your friend will be forced through PR handwringing will throw you over the side like unnecessary ballast so they can kowtow to the misinformed, stupid public. We're in a new age now, where false umbrage and political maneuvering forces candidates to jump through hoops and creates prerequisites for what they must say before they can be taken seriously. Welcome to our new democracy. That censure might not do anything, but it says everything.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Petreaus, Iraq, and Options
It's hard to even have an opinion on Iraq anymore.
A lot anyone's position will come down to trust. Who do you trust? Do you trust the President? I think given his track record you'd be hard pressed to find a reason to. He has given so much spin to Iraq over the last few years that America is sick, from both the dizzy spell and the cost in lives and money. His speech earlier tonight was meant to inspire, but it didn't, and it didn't because of the track record the President has laid down for himself over the last few years. His speech tonight tried to emphasize the progress we have made since last year. A year ago, he said, we were close to admitting that provinces were lost to Al Qaeda, that we were being hammered by ever more powerful militias, and that there seemed little hope for ever settling the matter peacefully. Well, I'm sorry but, what? A year ago President Bush was extolling the virtues of the war and blaming naysayers for being down on it and ruining the image of all the progress we were making. But now a year a later they were all right but THIS time is different? It's a hard pill to swallow from a man that has a pathological inability to talk straight, despite his so called Texas folksy charm.
So who does that leave us with? The only other government official speaking with that kind of authority is General David Petreaus, leader of all and everything that is going on in Iraq. He and President Bush have said that Anbar province is a posterchild for everything that can go right in Iraq, that local Sheikhs and other tribal leaders came to the US asking for help. And yet reporters on the ground are saying that all we're doing is throwing money at them in return for their help. We give them money, guns, and by promising them a spot in the Iraqi police force, we give them legitimacy. Meanwhile, outside those cities are makeshift cities of refugees, hundreds of thousands of them, pushed out of their homes by sectarian rivalry and fighting fueled by the same people we are now funding and supporting. And we are hearing reports that the Iraqi Police is corrupt, rife with sectarian feuding, hated by the average Iraqi, and many are calling for it to be disbanded entirely.
Crocker and Petreaus didn't even try to sugarcoat the failures of the government. It seems the government is offering up the lack of progress in the government and asserting military success so we'll take that one as a given and he can claim partial success. But while Democrats seem to be falling for it, by attacking the government and leaving the military situation alone, I don't. I don't think the military situation is nearly so rosy, even if the added 30,000 troops have had a positive impact, violence is still ridiculously high, and I don't consider paying off our enemies (which is ironic considering the President previously said he didn't even want to talk to them, let alone pay and arm them) any sort of success. We didn't learn from that lesson with Osama Bin Laden? We trained and armed the man during the war between the USSR and Afghanistan in the 1980's, and now we're seriously doing it again?
Petreaus is saying five of twenty combat brigades in Iraq will be out by July, which means a reduction in forces (post surge) of 25%. That's cool, but what then? If there is never a political fix to the problem, there will never be a stable Iraq like President Bush is promising. And he appears unwilling to really strongarm them into fixing it. So we have to ask ourselves a couple questions: What do we really expect to do over there? What do we think will happen if we suddenly left? Is it worth it?
My opinions have been mixed on this subject for awhile now. I believed, and still believe that I was right from the start, that Iraq was a bad idea, that we never should have gone in, and that if we were going to go in, it was done all wrong, and mismanaged from the start. But now we are there, and wishing makes nothing so. So do we do the honorable thing and fix what we broke? Or do we cut our losses? I think we do both, or at least, we try to be honorable. I've given up expecting honesty or honor from the White House. He says we will only draw down troops from a position of victory, but he ignores the fact that keeping those 30,000 surge troops in Iraq is unsustainable, we just don't have the men for it, which makes his words more lies and smokescreen. So first: We don't abandon Iraq, not yet anyway. What we need to do is issue them warning, stern warnings, that our continued assistance is NOT without strings or limitations. We give them until the end of Bush's presidency to act. It's arbitrary, but I don't care anymore, we've given them YEARS to act, and they have done little to nothing to make the situation better. So we set a date, too bad, you guys had your chance. Don't trumpet that date from the rooftops, in fact, it should be private between President Bush and Maliki and his government. If it leaks out, well, that's a sign of how weak that government is then isn't it? If they fail to meet the standards we set for them, then we do one of two things: 1. We dissolve their government, take over, and set the laws the way we've wanted them to begin with. Yes, it'll destroy the democracy we've already created and will piss a lot of people off, but if they can't do it, we have to, or else: 2. We get out. If they won't fix it, and we won't fix it, it isn't going to be fixed, and if it isn't going to be fixed, what the hell are we still doing there? President Bush likes to make all these fanciful allusions to World War II, and all the great things we did in Germany and Japan after the war. Is he ignoring the fact that there were military governors there for more than a DECADE after the end of the war? In Iraq we handed control over far too fast. They weren't ready for it. They didn't have the support they needed from within to keep it going, and so it is falling down.
I'm done with the status quo. The status quo is a mismanaged war, and a country that seems unwilling to commit the troops needed when they are needed to fix this problem correctly. And I refuse to let us half ass it for another decade before we finally say we gave it the old college try, but we just couldn't hack it. They can bleed is dry, just like the Chechnyans are doing to Russia, who wastes their best and most valued military equipment on a tiny nation of people yearning to be free. They did it in Afghanistan too, and then, WE were the Iran supplying weapons secretly. So we either put up NOW, or we get out, NOW. It isn't retreat. WE didn't lose. We won. Iraq lost. The problem with pinning this as a win or lose for the US but leaving the outcome up to Iraq is that we don't actually get to fight anything. We're leaving it up to Iraqi politicians to win or lose the war for us. That's what you get from black and white them or us thinking. Fact of the matter is that militarily, our servicemen have performed splendidly in spite of Administration blunders by the dozens. We declare victory and we come home, because we did what we set out to do, but the Iraqis failed. So they lose, we don't. We rebuild our broken army and we prepare to fight another day, but we don't abandon the fight as a whole, and we don't allow them to beat us in a war of attrition, which is exactly what this is becoming.
Secure victory for the future by leaving before it's too late to win in the future. Give them an ultimatum; it's far past time to do so.
A lot anyone's position will come down to trust. Who do you trust? Do you trust the President? I think given his track record you'd be hard pressed to find a reason to. He has given so much spin to Iraq over the last few years that America is sick, from both the dizzy spell and the cost in lives and money. His speech earlier tonight was meant to inspire, but it didn't, and it didn't because of the track record the President has laid down for himself over the last few years. His speech tonight tried to emphasize the progress we have made since last year. A year ago, he said, we were close to admitting that provinces were lost to Al Qaeda, that we were being hammered by ever more powerful militias, and that there seemed little hope for ever settling the matter peacefully. Well, I'm sorry but, what? A year ago President Bush was extolling the virtues of the war and blaming naysayers for being down on it and ruining the image of all the progress we were making. But now a year a later they were all right but THIS time is different? It's a hard pill to swallow from a man that has a pathological inability to talk straight, despite his so called Texas folksy charm.
So who does that leave us with? The only other government official speaking with that kind of authority is General David Petreaus, leader of all and everything that is going on in Iraq. He and President Bush have said that Anbar province is a posterchild for everything that can go right in Iraq, that local Sheikhs and other tribal leaders came to the US asking for help. And yet reporters on the ground are saying that all we're doing is throwing money at them in return for their help. We give them money, guns, and by promising them a spot in the Iraqi police force, we give them legitimacy. Meanwhile, outside those cities are makeshift cities of refugees, hundreds of thousands of them, pushed out of their homes by sectarian rivalry and fighting fueled by the same people we are now funding and supporting. And we are hearing reports that the Iraqi Police is corrupt, rife with sectarian feuding, hated by the average Iraqi, and many are calling for it to be disbanded entirely.
Crocker and Petreaus didn't even try to sugarcoat the failures of the government. It seems the government is offering up the lack of progress in the government and asserting military success so we'll take that one as a given and he can claim partial success. But while Democrats seem to be falling for it, by attacking the government and leaving the military situation alone, I don't. I don't think the military situation is nearly so rosy, even if the added 30,000 troops have had a positive impact, violence is still ridiculously high, and I don't consider paying off our enemies (which is ironic considering the President previously said he didn't even want to talk to them, let alone pay and arm them) any sort of success. We didn't learn from that lesson with Osama Bin Laden? We trained and armed the man during the war between the USSR and Afghanistan in the 1980's, and now we're seriously doing it again?
Petreaus is saying five of twenty combat brigades in Iraq will be out by July, which means a reduction in forces (post surge) of 25%. That's cool, but what then? If there is never a political fix to the problem, there will never be a stable Iraq like President Bush is promising. And he appears unwilling to really strongarm them into fixing it. So we have to ask ourselves a couple questions: What do we really expect to do over there? What do we think will happen if we suddenly left? Is it worth it?
My opinions have been mixed on this subject for awhile now. I believed, and still believe that I was right from the start, that Iraq was a bad idea, that we never should have gone in, and that if we were going to go in, it was done all wrong, and mismanaged from the start. But now we are there, and wishing makes nothing so. So do we do the honorable thing and fix what we broke? Or do we cut our losses? I think we do both, or at least, we try to be honorable. I've given up expecting honesty or honor from the White House. He says we will only draw down troops from a position of victory, but he ignores the fact that keeping those 30,000 surge troops in Iraq is unsustainable, we just don't have the men for it, which makes his words more lies and smokescreen. So first: We don't abandon Iraq, not yet anyway. What we need to do is issue them warning, stern warnings, that our continued assistance is NOT without strings or limitations. We give them until the end of Bush's presidency to act. It's arbitrary, but I don't care anymore, we've given them YEARS to act, and they have done little to nothing to make the situation better. So we set a date, too bad, you guys had your chance. Don't trumpet that date from the rooftops, in fact, it should be private between President Bush and Maliki and his government. If it leaks out, well, that's a sign of how weak that government is then isn't it? If they fail to meet the standards we set for them, then we do one of two things: 1. We dissolve their government, take over, and set the laws the way we've wanted them to begin with. Yes, it'll destroy the democracy we've already created and will piss a lot of people off, but if they can't do it, we have to, or else: 2. We get out. If they won't fix it, and we won't fix it, it isn't going to be fixed, and if it isn't going to be fixed, what the hell are we still doing there? President Bush likes to make all these fanciful allusions to World War II, and all the great things we did in Germany and Japan after the war. Is he ignoring the fact that there were military governors there for more than a DECADE after the end of the war? In Iraq we handed control over far too fast. They weren't ready for it. They didn't have the support they needed from within to keep it going, and so it is falling down.
I'm done with the status quo. The status quo is a mismanaged war, and a country that seems unwilling to commit the troops needed when they are needed to fix this problem correctly. And I refuse to let us half ass it for another decade before we finally say we gave it the old college try, but we just couldn't hack it. They can bleed is dry, just like the Chechnyans are doing to Russia, who wastes their best and most valued military equipment on a tiny nation of people yearning to be free. They did it in Afghanistan too, and then, WE were the Iran supplying weapons secretly. So we either put up NOW, or we get out, NOW. It isn't retreat. WE didn't lose. We won. Iraq lost. The problem with pinning this as a win or lose for the US but leaving the outcome up to Iraq is that we don't actually get to fight anything. We're leaving it up to Iraqi politicians to win or lose the war for us. That's what you get from black and white them or us thinking. Fact of the matter is that militarily, our servicemen have performed splendidly in spite of Administration blunders by the dozens. We declare victory and we come home, because we did what we set out to do, but the Iraqis failed. So they lose, we don't. We rebuild our broken army and we prepare to fight another day, but we don't abandon the fight as a whole, and we don't allow them to beat us in a war of attrition, which is exactly what this is becoming.
Secure victory for the future by leaving before it's too late to win in the future. Give them an ultimatum; it's far past time to do so.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Why The Democratic Party Should Change Its Name
A reasonably intelligence person could easily deduce that a political party calling themselves "Democrats" would in fact be supporters of democracy. But recent decisions threaten to remove an element of the democratic rights of Michiganders and Floridians. Howard Dean, in a draconian move, has threatened both states with the removal of their delegates to the nominating convention if they don't adhere to the rule that leaves Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina in control of the early portion of the election.
Both the Republicans and Democrats have mandated that no states other than the ones they handpick will be allowed to hold primaries before February 5th, 2008. States that hold their primaries before that date, such as Michigan, who is very close to approving a January 15th move, and Florida, who has moved theirs to January 29th, risk losing all their delegates to the Democratic nominating committee, and half to the Republican.
This decision is stupid and wrong on multiple fronts. First off, why are Democrats making hay in a state that has at least twice now lost them a national election? Florida has turned into a massive swing state, one the Democrats need to make a play for in 2008, and shutting them down like that is going to piss them off royally. Why alienate them? Michigan isn't exactly a solid blue state either. We could fall on either side of the line, despite recent Democratic gains here. The state is last in economic growth in the nation, as we watch our auto jobs fly every which way around the globe, and we want answers. Shutting down our voice will only force us to look at the candidates who will actually listen to us, which leaves only the Republicans.
Florida is threatening legal action against the Democrats over the issue. But there's something bigger at stake here than just political fallout, it's the biggest issue of all. That issue, is who gets a voice in choosing our national leader. Why do the same two states, who don't represent a true cross section of America, get to be out in front? Why is it only two other states, as olive branches to the southern and western regions get added (South Carolina and Nevada)? And now the Democrats and Republicans have created a system which makes it advantageous to try and have the earliest possible primary, as the earlier the primary, the further ahead you are, and the more campaign stops you get, which increases the power of your voice. Now 30 some states are bunched together on February 5th, four are out in front, all of which are getting major campaign stops and dollars, and a couple might not get anything. Most every Democratic candidate has already pledged to ignore democracy, ahem, I mean to adhere to the Democratic Party by not even campaigning in states that have primaries before February 5th who aren't approved.
So who really wins in this scenario? Americans are being denied the right to vote in their primary because they violate stupid, arbitrary rules that serve a grand minority of voters. The best we Democrats here in Michigan could do I suppose is change party affiliation and all vote for Ron Paul. So long as our votes aren't going to count anyway, we might as well do some damage. But I don't particularly feel like helping the Democrats right now. If there weren't so much riding on this election, I'd almost vote Republican just to spite them, not that the Republicans are much better on this issue, but at least their candidates aren't caving to the pressure by not campaigning here.
Howard Dean, who I once helped campaign for in 2004, should be ashamed of himself.
Both the Republicans and Democrats have mandated that no states other than the ones they handpick will be allowed to hold primaries before February 5th, 2008. States that hold their primaries before that date, such as Michigan, who is very close to approving a January 15th move, and Florida, who has moved theirs to January 29th, risk losing all their delegates to the Democratic nominating committee, and half to the Republican.
This decision is stupid and wrong on multiple fronts. First off, why are Democrats making hay in a state that has at least twice now lost them a national election? Florida has turned into a massive swing state, one the Democrats need to make a play for in 2008, and shutting them down like that is going to piss them off royally. Why alienate them? Michigan isn't exactly a solid blue state either. We could fall on either side of the line, despite recent Democratic gains here. The state is last in economic growth in the nation, as we watch our auto jobs fly every which way around the globe, and we want answers. Shutting down our voice will only force us to look at the candidates who will actually listen to us, which leaves only the Republicans.
Florida is threatening legal action against the Democrats over the issue. But there's something bigger at stake here than just political fallout, it's the biggest issue of all. That issue, is who gets a voice in choosing our national leader. Why do the same two states, who don't represent a true cross section of America, get to be out in front? Why is it only two other states, as olive branches to the southern and western regions get added (South Carolina and Nevada)? And now the Democrats and Republicans have created a system which makes it advantageous to try and have the earliest possible primary, as the earlier the primary, the further ahead you are, and the more campaign stops you get, which increases the power of your voice. Now 30 some states are bunched together on February 5th, four are out in front, all of which are getting major campaign stops and dollars, and a couple might not get anything. Most every Democratic candidate has already pledged to ignore democracy, ahem, I mean to adhere to the Democratic Party by not even campaigning in states that have primaries before February 5th who aren't approved.
So who really wins in this scenario? Americans are being denied the right to vote in their primary because they violate stupid, arbitrary rules that serve a grand minority of voters. The best we Democrats here in Michigan could do I suppose is change party affiliation and all vote for Ron Paul. So long as our votes aren't going to count anyway, we might as well do some damage. But I don't particularly feel like helping the Democrats right now. If there weren't so much riding on this election, I'd almost vote Republican just to spite them, not that the Republicans are much better on this issue, but at least their candidates aren't caving to the pressure by not campaigning here.
Howard Dean, who I once helped campaign for in 2004, should be ashamed of himself.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Anything New in Politics?
I'm back from a long hiatus, and though I left in the middle of what was to be a 10 part series, I think I'm going to put it on hold. I've actually written most of the 10 parts, and may in the future continue to put them up here, they sadly don't seem relevant at the moment.
Alberto Gonzalez recently quit as the Attorney General of the US. Big deal. President Bush as you can imagine came out to call his treatment totally unfair, even though Gonzalez constantly was unable to answer questions before Congressional hearings. The man was either a liar or incompetent to an unbelievable degree, which I find wholly plausible.
Karl Rove is on the way out too, as if that makes a difference. He'll still consult from afar, and in the mean time he'll join the campaign of a GOP candidate in order to sink his tendrils into fresh meat.
Giuliani and Romney seem to be battling it out for who will win the GOP nomination, and somehow Giuliani seems to be in the lead. I wouldn't have believed it six months ago, and I still can't now. How can this guy be the GOP nominee? I think even I could crush him next fall. He has more negative baggage than any of the candidates in the field, and Democrats are going to have a field day with that.
On the Democratic side, it looks like Hillary is going to coast to victory with Obama hot on her heels. That man is really a force to be reckoned with. Many are saying he's a lock for the VP spot, hell, even Castro is saying that, of all people. He can command a crowd, and command a dollar, if his fund raising skills are any measure of his ability to part people with their money. The two of them would blow any of the GOP candidates out of the water in fundraising, but Hillary will be asking herself if a Democratic ticket, or if any ticket can win with a woman and a black guy running. It's going to scare away a lot of conservative voters, but then with Giuliani on the GOP side, I think a lot of them will just stay home anyway. I personally would rather have Obama on the front side of the ticket, but she's up by 20 points, so I don't see it happening.
It'd be great for Democratic politics to have him be the VP. He'd be a lock for the nomination in 8 years. He'd have the experience he needs combined with the power of incumbency, a magnetic personality and powerful oratory style. I think him stumping for Hillary is going to flood a lot of votes in as well. Between him and Bill Clinton, they'll have the best chance in years of winning, even with Hillary's own negative baggage, she has a great senatorial record she can boast about, and was strong enough on the military for Republicans to not be able to attack her. Meanwhile Giuliani has really no background in national or even state politics. All he has is his legacy as the Mayor of New York, and other than one day of great PR, it wasn't a sterling record. A lot of people now are starting to question even his leadership on that day.
I think Clinton/Obama is a great ticket, and I could vote for it finally not feeling like I was just hoping for everything to work out. I also think that Democrats will pick up more senate and house seats to, though probably still not enough to break a fillibuster. They'd have to get another eight or nine senate seats to do that, which I don't think is achievable at the moment. But Republicans can't stonewall on everything.
We'll find out who the runners will be in January, but Hillary is almost a lock, and only Romney has a real chance of catchng Giuliani after McCain's implosion and only Huckabee nipping at Romney's heels.
Alberto Gonzalez recently quit as the Attorney General of the US. Big deal. President Bush as you can imagine came out to call his treatment totally unfair, even though Gonzalez constantly was unable to answer questions before Congressional hearings. The man was either a liar or incompetent to an unbelievable degree, which I find wholly plausible.
Karl Rove is on the way out too, as if that makes a difference. He'll still consult from afar, and in the mean time he'll join the campaign of a GOP candidate in order to sink his tendrils into fresh meat.
Giuliani and Romney seem to be battling it out for who will win the GOP nomination, and somehow Giuliani seems to be in the lead. I wouldn't have believed it six months ago, and I still can't now. How can this guy be the GOP nominee? I think even I could crush him next fall. He has more negative baggage than any of the candidates in the field, and Democrats are going to have a field day with that.
On the Democratic side, it looks like Hillary is going to coast to victory with Obama hot on her heels. That man is really a force to be reckoned with. Many are saying he's a lock for the VP spot, hell, even Castro is saying that, of all people. He can command a crowd, and command a dollar, if his fund raising skills are any measure of his ability to part people with their money. The two of them would blow any of the GOP candidates out of the water in fundraising, but Hillary will be asking herself if a Democratic ticket, or if any ticket can win with a woman and a black guy running. It's going to scare away a lot of conservative voters, but then with Giuliani on the GOP side, I think a lot of them will just stay home anyway. I personally would rather have Obama on the front side of the ticket, but she's up by 20 points, so I don't see it happening.
It'd be great for Democratic politics to have him be the VP. He'd be a lock for the nomination in 8 years. He'd have the experience he needs combined with the power of incumbency, a magnetic personality and powerful oratory style. I think him stumping for Hillary is going to flood a lot of votes in as well. Between him and Bill Clinton, they'll have the best chance in years of winning, even with Hillary's own negative baggage, she has a great senatorial record she can boast about, and was strong enough on the military for Republicans to not be able to attack her. Meanwhile Giuliani has really no background in national or even state politics. All he has is his legacy as the Mayor of New York, and other than one day of great PR, it wasn't a sterling record. A lot of people now are starting to question even his leadership on that day.
I think Clinton/Obama is a great ticket, and I could vote for it finally not feeling like I was just hoping for everything to work out. I also think that Democrats will pick up more senate and house seats to, though probably still not enough to break a fillibuster. They'd have to get another eight or nine senate seats to do that, which I don't think is achievable at the moment. But Republicans can't stonewall on everything.
We'll find out who the runners will be in January, but Hillary is almost a lock, and only Romney has a real chance of catchng Giuliani after McCain's implosion and only Huckabee nipping at Romney's heels.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Who's Even Paying Attention?
I know I've been away from this blog for awhile, and I left in the middle of a ten part series on Domestic Issues (which I've mostly written by the way, I just haven't put it up yet). But I have to be honest, what is there that's really going on?
Congressional approval right now in this country is in the 30's, as in 30%. Bush's numbers are just as bad. The people of this country don't trust or approve of their government, and the government is doing absolutely nothing to change our perception. They get all worked up over an immigration bill that can't pass. They make an energy bill riddled with giveaways to interest groups and cuts many helpful provisions for consumers, and likely they'll soon pass a 50 billion dollar farm bill that gives more money away to giant agribusinesses.
Elections are 15 months away in this country, and I have only one thing to say: don't vote for the incumbent. You can still vote for your party, just not the guy in office. We need to send a wakeup call that reelection isn't a lock, and they need to spend more time pleasing us and less time sucking up to money spigots so they can brainwash us into electing them. If they want my vote they have to earn it through good governance, not scaring me into believing the other guy is just a little bit worse than he is. Our country fifty years ago had a less than 20% incumbency rate, and not it's above 70%. At what point did we decide that letting these guys stay in office for decades at a time was a good idea?
I think we need to let one party have the reins of government for awhile, and that means electing more Democrats so they won't be stymied by Republicans. We need to elect a Democratic president, and at the moment I'm waffling back and forth between Obama, who has a vigor, charisma and energy that make me excited to be both a Democrat and American, and Hillary, who I think has a lot of great technical solutions for the problems in the country. The other Democrats are fine, well, not Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, but they'll never have the power to get into the White House, and frankly they don't have any sort of awe inspiring qualities.
I think Bush and the Republicans had six years to be good at government and they showed us for six years that they suck at it. I think Democrats were voted into power to change things, and they still aren't able to because their majority is too slim and the President too thick headed and stubborn to compromise. So I want them to have control of both houses, and I want new guys in those seats. We need to set the reset switch in Washington and get this country back on the right track. I'm sick to death of partisan sniping, and yes, I sometimes participate in it myself, but I don't hate Republicans, I don't even dislike them, I just don't like their ideas, their policies, or their dogma. I'm not a huge fan of Democrats these days either, but I at least have faith that they will not only NOT run us more into the ground, they might even help dig us out of this hole we're in.
Whatever you do, don't vote for the status quo. And even if it is hard, with all the same ole same ole crap that is going on there right now (from failed legislation to Cheney breaking the law again, to Bush pardoning a loyal ally), try your hardest to pay attention to what is going on right now. The angrier you get with every curve ball they try and throw you, the more charged you will be with November 7, 2008 rolls around.
Congressional approval right now in this country is in the 30's, as in 30%. Bush's numbers are just as bad. The people of this country don't trust or approve of their government, and the government is doing absolutely nothing to change our perception. They get all worked up over an immigration bill that can't pass. They make an energy bill riddled with giveaways to interest groups and cuts many helpful provisions for consumers, and likely they'll soon pass a 50 billion dollar farm bill that gives more money away to giant agribusinesses.
Elections are 15 months away in this country, and I have only one thing to say: don't vote for the incumbent. You can still vote for your party, just not the guy in office. We need to send a wakeup call that reelection isn't a lock, and they need to spend more time pleasing us and less time sucking up to money spigots so they can brainwash us into electing them. If they want my vote they have to earn it through good governance, not scaring me into believing the other guy is just a little bit worse than he is. Our country fifty years ago had a less than 20% incumbency rate, and not it's above 70%. At what point did we decide that letting these guys stay in office for decades at a time was a good idea?
I think we need to let one party have the reins of government for awhile, and that means electing more Democrats so they won't be stymied by Republicans. We need to elect a Democratic president, and at the moment I'm waffling back and forth between Obama, who has a vigor, charisma and energy that make me excited to be both a Democrat and American, and Hillary, who I think has a lot of great technical solutions for the problems in the country. The other Democrats are fine, well, not Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, but they'll never have the power to get into the White House, and frankly they don't have any sort of awe inspiring qualities.
I think Bush and the Republicans had six years to be good at government and they showed us for six years that they suck at it. I think Democrats were voted into power to change things, and they still aren't able to because their majority is too slim and the President too thick headed and stubborn to compromise. So I want them to have control of both houses, and I want new guys in those seats. We need to set the reset switch in Washington and get this country back on the right track. I'm sick to death of partisan sniping, and yes, I sometimes participate in it myself, but I don't hate Republicans, I don't even dislike them, I just don't like their ideas, their policies, or their dogma. I'm not a huge fan of Democrats these days either, but I at least have faith that they will not only NOT run us more into the ground, they might even help dig us out of this hole we're in.
Whatever you do, don't vote for the status quo. And even if it is hard, with all the same ole same ole crap that is going on there right now (from failed legislation to Cheney breaking the law again, to Bush pardoning a loyal ally), try your hardest to pay attention to what is going on right now. The angrier you get with every curve ball they try and throw you, the more charged you will be with November 7, 2008 rolls around.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Domestics - Part Three: Taxes
Taxes
It’s high time we simplified the tax code. We spend millions every year just paying people to try and make sense of it. Literally billions of dollars of money that should be returned to our citizens is lost because they don’t claim it. That’s money stolen from the hands of the people. Further, the difficult tax code stifles foreign investment. It might just be that America already is an inviting place for investment, but companies that have to spend thousands of dollars just to understand the ground rules before they even invest in America will look elsewhere for somewhere easier to break into. It also works against the small business owner. I think it’s time to experiment with, and possibly slowly phase in a national sales tax, and get rid of all payroll taxes and corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are an illusion anyway. Costs from corporate taxes are passed down to the consumer through price increases, which effectively leaves consumers paying twice, once out of their paychecks and once at the cash register. Cut those taxes and make American companies more competitive. At the same time this will bring in more income as all purchases made in the US will bring in tax money, which means a consumer driven economy can only enrich the coffers, and further, non-US citizens will be contributing as well with every purchase they make. It’s the ultimate way to make sure Americans have total control over what taxes they pay, with every purchase they make. If we simplify the tax code, we can make the country more efficient, give the people more control over their lives, and make America more competitive in the world economy. If it turns out it isn’t a good enough replacement for payroll taxes, then we lose nothing in trying, but the system as it stands is too convoluted and weighs down on our economy and our lives. We earn our money, we work our whole lives, work ourselves to death sometimes, and we should have more control of the money we make. Government spends too much, and it takes too much, and it’s time for a change. I fear that a sales tax would become a burden on the poor, who already pay next to nothing in taxes. This only makes sense if, like proponents of the national sales tax say, the price of all goods drops and the national sales taxes rises, equaling out to nearly the same price things currently stand at. Should this fail, I suggest just simplifying the tax code in general, and looking at other ways of coming up with a fair way to fund the government.
This one is short, but the next one, on Energy, will be the longest yet.
Friday, May 11, 2007
The Domestics - Part Two: American Personal Finance
And now part two of ten in my series on domestic issues:
American Personal Finance
Part of the problem with solving Social Security is that so many Americans look at it as their retirement income. It’s not. Americans should be saving literally hundreds of thousands of dollars over the decades of their adulthood to pay for their golden years. But Americans aren’t doing that. They aren’t saving for retirement, in fact, they aren’t saving at all. Americans spend 100.1% of the money they earn, and in case you are wondering, yes, they spend one hundred dollars and ten cents for every hundred dollars they earn. Not only are we not saving, we’re spending ourselves into debt that can never be gotten rid of. Clearly Americans do not know how to be responsible stewards of their own finances. Something must be done from the government to induce Americans to save early in their youth for retirement, and in general. A couple thousand dollars not put away at the age of 25 will cost tens of thousands to replace in your mid 30’s. Why? Because that couple thousand dollars builds on itself for that decade, and the interest it earns builds on that, and so on and so forth. Saving a lot and saving early on is the key to having a stable retirement fund.
I'll be perfectly honest here, I don't know how to fix this problem. The biggest part of the problem is what I already said above: Social Security. People expect the government to solve their problems for them. If they go bankrupt, they expect the government to help them out of it, if their home is foreclosed on, they expect help, or unemployment, or food stamps, or whatever. We're a society that over the last fifty years has slowly but surely removed personal responsibility from a people that champion themselves on being independent and self sufficient. And as bad as it might have been before, it's reaching a breaking point. Right now the only thing bolstering the economy is insane consumer spending, but it’s not going to last forever. Food is getting more expensive, as is gas, and other items. It’s draining away money from the American economy, and it leaves American people horribly vulnerable to economic swings. With no safety net in the bank, what will they do when the car breaks down, or when they lose their job? Chances are they will rely on a credit card with ridiculously high interest rates. My grandparents’ generation saved as much as half their paychecks away in the bank, which helped create unparalleled wealth in America. My generation is likely to have negative savings, in other words, huge debt, especially given the cost of an education. The government doesn’t do a very good job by having a nine trillion dollar debt, which sets a horrible example. Having money in the bank, having a secure retirement, and reducing the role of government as a safety net will make us a stronger, more stable nation. It comes down to this:
People should be responsible for their own financial well being. The government shouldn’t be there, be it through Social Security or anything else to support you when you are older. What the government should do, is spur you to do so yourself. We aren’t France, we won’t tax you 40% to secure your future, but it is clear the American people aren’t going to do it ourselves, we live too much in the moment. Social Security is a huge drain on the economy and the nation’s coffers. Let’s reduce it, and maybe some day get rid of it. People need to be given more options to grow their money. The thousands of dollars I give to Social Security over my life will have a much smaller rate of return than the money I save personally, because my investments will be diversified over the 30 some odd years of my adult work life, and they will get as much as eight to ten percent back, while Social Security might only get me half that. It’s time to put control of our future’s back in our hands, even if that control has to be forced down our throats.
So who gets to solve this problem? Maybe we need to hit rock bottom. Maybe we just need to crash and burn without the government there to be our safety net. This kind of change back to what we used to do is a major shift from the status quo, but it's necessary. Or maybe government needs to find a way to get young people to save for retirement, perhaps by offering matching funds for a certain amount of money put away, on the condition that that money absolutely cannot be touched until retirement and offering tax breaks and benefits as well. Personally I think this should be solved by regular people, but regular people aren't stepping up to the plate. Even business has a vested interest in championing savings. If people have more disposable income and savings, they will make better consumers over the long term, instead of spending themselves into oblivion to buoy an otherwise lackluster economy. The bottom line is we need to find a way to get Americans to save more money and spend less! This is a call to duty. I'd rather we all become responsible Americans and people and just fix our own problems, but if they aren't going to do that, there's no harm in looking at all options to fix this.
Take control of your own lives and be responsible, if you don't, you'll pay later in life.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Sphere of Domesticity
It's no secret that the main focus of American politics for the last few years has been foreign policy. But while the issues that concern our interest across the seas are important, equally so are the issues that face us here at home. This week and next, I'll be doing a 10 part feature on what I consider to be the biggest domestic issues facing America that do NOT deal with social policy. In other words, gay marriage, abortion, flag burning, and other such issues will not be included in this discussion. I don't see them being solved in the very near future, and when it really comes down to it, there is no pressing need to solve them. While I personally feel that gay rights are an issue of major importance, and the lack of equality is atrocious and deserves immediate remedy, the lack of such a result isn't going to cause the downfall of the nation at any point in the future. The issues I have in mind are of serious consequence to our country and our future. Many of them are of pressing need, and require attentions. Others are simply solid issues that I think should be addressed. The issues that will be discussed, are as follows:
- Healthcare
- American Personal Finance
- Taxes
- Energy
- Transportation
- Education
- Social Security
- The Military
- The Budget
- Compulsory Service
Every couple days I'll post a new issue until they are all done. Without further pause, I give you the first issue:
Healthcare
America spends more on healthcare than any other nation in the world, and for our money, we don’t have a better system in place than anyone else, in fact, it rates much lower than much of Europe. There needs to be a new focus on prevention, not treatment. Certainly treatment is a big issue, but billions can be saved in dollars, and thousands in lives if we don’t allow problems to crop up to begin with. That means making sure US citizens all have access to an affordable doctor, it means they have to get regular checkups, and it means they need to follow the advice given by those doctors. We can expect to see a major drop in diabetes and heart disease, two things that are the result of obesity, which is more and more becoming a major epidemic in this country. Once everyone is covered, the price will go down for everyone, as we slowly get this country healthy as a whole, we’ll have to spend less overall.
The problem is more deep seated than just a lack of prevention focus. With the way our healthcare system works, healthcare providers are more willing to pay $50,000 to amputate a diabetic’s foot than to pay a cheaper price to simple provide them with the testing supplies and insulin to maintain their disease and keep them healthy. Chronic diseases that shouldn’t be life threatening are costing us big time because, among other problems, healthcare providers are more willing to pay the costs derived from waiting too long rather than the cheaper cost of prevention. Hospitals too are getting in on the game. The hospitals make more money off that $50,000 amputation, but hospitals that attempt to run clinics that check up on and help diabetics’ manage their disease lose money. It makes more sense as a business for them to work this way, but healthcare providers should be trying to make and save the most money for themselves. And above all, no one seems to be concerned with the overall health of the patients themselves, which should be the primary focus of healthcare. We know that prevention centers like a diabetes management team works to reduce complications and help people lead healthier lives. It reduces costs across the whole system, and it should make employers happier by reducing their healthcare costs and keeping their workers healthier and more efficient. But for some reason we buy into this most odd system of taking care of our citizens. It’s time for a change.
We must also make strides to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Any plan to make us healthier and to reduce the overall cost has to include drastically reduced prices on drugs. Seniors are buying unsafe drugs from Canada illegally in the thousands, and there are no checks and balances to ensure that those drugs aren't created in some basement in Argentina. They are unsafe, and seniors are dying because they can't afford the real stuff, and because they don't understand the risks involved. We must find a compromise that will protect the profits of Big Pharma and at the same time make their products affordable for the masses. Currently it costs billions for a pharmaceutical company to research and bring a new drug to market. If such a product ends up failing, those billions are lost, even worse if the whole line of drugs fails as has happened lately. And yet their parents last for such a relatively short period of time that they must charge outrageous sums of money for them in order to recoup their investment and profit, and still have money to keep other projects moving. While in the end this system may be profitable for the company, there must be a balance found between profits and the consumer.
There must also be reform of the legal process involved in malpractice cases. We cannot drive good doctors out of the industry through outrageous lawsuits. There needs to be a cap on pain and suffering, which I would arbitrarily set, at its highest, at $250,000. People need to realize that surgery is not 100% safe, and there are no guarantees. If we can’t come up with a way to protect against outrageous lawsuits, then soon there might not be any doctors to solve our health problems at all, and then we’ll be in serious trouble.
We also need to work on cutting administrative overhead. Billions of dollars are wasted on administrative costs, the paperwork, which should be used for treatment. We can help to do this by moving to a paperless system. Making all the information electronic, we can cut down on errors, easily and quickly transmit medical history, and reduce waste. In other words, we’ll save money, increase efficiency and save lives.
But there is much more to do than major policy issues. We need to get back to some basics and take a look at hospital safety measures. A high percentage of post operative infections, and of hospital infections in general are caused because patients get sick from other patients, and the main way this is done is from physicians who don’t wash their hands in between patients. If we exact stringent measures on the food industry to make sure that food is cooked to a certain temperature and sauces are heated and cooled in the correct amount of time, certainly we can expect doctors to wash their hands in between patients. We’ve spent a lot of time and money over the past couple decades to make sure there are sanitation stations all over hospitals, in every room even, but still 100,000 people die every year from infections they got in hospitals, and billions of dollars are lost, as hospitals aren’t reimbursed for extended stays and complications. It will save lives, it will reduce costs to hospitals, and it will get patients out of the hospital faster.
Employers need to take part in this as well, and for good reason. Right now employers are footing a decent part of the bill, and this is the reason why so many are cutting benefits to employees. By making their employees healthy, they can reduce their own costs, and they can increase their productivity through less sick days, maybe even awarding more vacation days, increasing the quality of life in this country by destressing the country. But all in all it will make them more competitive in the world market. They should be an equal partner in offering good health plans to employees, and should offer health club memberships and incentives to use them as well. They should also add incentives to employees who get yearly physicals. These efforts might sound altruistic, but really it all has to do with profit and efficiency. Healthy workers are happy workers, and healthy happy workers are productive workers. Productivity equals profit, and when companies are constantly pushing for increased production for lower costs, anything that can boost it at a lower cost is worthwhile.
In the end I think employers will find this model to be extremely business friendly. Already billions of their dollars are going to a health industry that isn't necessarily giving them a good return on their investment. Once the healthcare system is fully overhauled, and the nation is healthier, prices will go down for business as well. Their money will be much better spent on this system.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Democrats Running for President
Democrats a few days ago had their first debate of the presidential race. Now there were eight candidates at this event, one of which I'd never heard of before. It brought to mind the debate of four years ago, with a slew of candidates, some unknown, half of which had zero chance of making the White House and were seemingly there just to make the event look like a circus. But times change. Four years later, most every candidate on the stage was cool, collected, focused, and presidential. 99% of the time they refrained from attacking each other, and laid the grand majority of their ire on Bush's doorstep. It was nice to see them expressing their differences and at the same time not hunting each other down. It was also nice, considering Mitt Romney's comments a few weeks ago during that goofy media inspired "fight" between Obama and Clinton over something I can't even remember now because it never mattered to begin with. Romney said something like 'you'll never see Republicans act like this, and man it's great to watch them go at it like that, I love it." Of course the statement was ridiculous, as weeks later the Republicans were sniping at each other, and the Democrats were never really fighting to begin with.
Returning the focus to the debate, there were eight contenders at this debate: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and the until now unknown Mike Gravel. Many of these candidates are more or less interchangeable with regards to their positions. But a few of them stand out for a variety of reasons.
Dennis Kucinich - I didn't really care much for him in 2004. He's idealistic, which I have no problem with, I even applaud it. But he's not realistic, which is utterly necessary for any leader. The big problem with President Bush is that he can't see reality, he acts in some sort of imaginary bubble, thinking that his military answers to every problem will pound his problems into submission. But Kucinich make the same mistake back in the other direction. He more or less pledges to never use force, ever. He wants to end the use of the military as an arm of foreign policy. The problem isn't that the military is an arm of foreign policy, it's that the military is the end result of failed foreign policy. Refusing to use the military isn't just irresponsible or unrealistic, it's stupid. Sometimes you just have to use force. You don't need to invade, but sometimes surgical strikes are necessary, sometimes blockades and no-fly zones are necessary. I wonder how Kucinich would have helped the Kurds in the early 90's when Saddam tried to wipe them out. Was he going to talk Saddam out of his genocidal aims? He isn't realistic, and his attitude on foreign policy makes his position on everything else irrelevant. Biden called him out on it, indirectly, at the end of the debate, more or less saying he lives in a fantasyland, and that you sometimes need force, and he's right. On a note of lesser importance, the guy is tiny. He's like a foot shorter than whoever that girl he was with, be it his wife or daughter, either way he's tiny. 75% of my criteria for a presidential candidate is their stance on issues. The other 25% is how much I trust them, a gut feeling, about how presidential they are, because when it comes to dealing with Congress and foreign powers, those things matter. He doesn't seem presidential at all.
Mike Gravel - As it stands, I won't be voting for him, and frankly I don't even know if he'll be on the ballot to vote for at all. But there's one thing I have been dying to hear in American politics, and that is candor. Gravel is oozing candor. The problem with that is compared to the canned scripted behavior of his opponents, he sounds a bit crazy in comparison. But he is bluntly honest. I don't necessarily agree with what I heard him say, and I think some of his hyperbole was over the top, but I want to hear more from him, regardless of what it is. He has my attention, and even if I don't want to vote for him as president, I want him talking, and I want someone to give him a platform to speak on. I look forward to hearing more about him, and now that I know who he is, I plan to seek out information on him myself. Gravel stands as one of a very tiny minority of Americans in government who call a spade a spade. I am sick of spin, I am sick of talking points, I am sick of catchphrases. I want to reward candor and honesty, and that means rewarding Gravel.
Bill Richardson - I've had my eye on him for sometime. I like his experience as a governor (the only one in the race on the Democratic side), and I like a lot of what he did there. I like what he has to say on taxes, I love what he has to say on health care, which falls most in line what what I personally believe we need as a solution. Focus on prevention, focus on efficiency, focus on cutting waste out of administrative costs. He has immense foreign policy experience and has numerously been nominated for a Nobel Prize. He's underrated in my opinion, and I'm glad he got a lot of screen time tonight. I think he held his own, and I think he came closest to matching Gravel's candor and honesty, though perhaps much more reserved and professionally. I hope he can find a way to get traction in this race and move into a top tier spot, and I hope we can hear more of his great ideas. I'm looking forward to seeing what he has to say on the environment, energy independence, and foreign policy.
Barack and Hillary both sounded presidential to me, and I perhaps I alone in the world find something very compelling about Hillary Clinton. She seems honest and smart, and I know many don't agree with that, I still can't help but feel a spark of hope whenever she speaks. Their policies are well known and I won't go into them. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are the other two senators running for the office, and both are probably less well known. Biden I think came out stronger than the two. He seems more youthful and charismatic, and also I thought a lot of his answers came out more off the cuff and honest rather than canned and scripted. And that leaves John Edwards. Personally I think he had his shot and missed it, but that's not really how presidential elections work. I don't know if he has the experience or not, but he's young, and earnest, which earns him some points. And he's also fairly specific with his ideas, which I also like. All in all I have a more favorable opinion of him after this debate than I did before.
So there you have it, the eight men and woman who would be the Democratic party's leader have spoken. One wonders how the debate would have fared if Al Gore was in it, but that's something we might not see until October or November. The man has the name recognition power and the positioning to wait that long, and save both the time, money and stress of not being bashed on for the next six months. If he jumps in at the last moment, everything could change, but we'll see. Until then it's a long road, and I already like how it's going.
On Thursday, May 3rd we'll get to see ten Republican candidates square off in the same style of debate also on MSNBC at 8PM (and that's not including Newt Gingrich). Now it is going to be fascinating to see them attack both Democrats and Bush, and somehow distance themselves from both groups. This country by and large dislikes Bush, and Republicans are running from him like they are trying out for the Olympics (except for McCain, which has hurt him seriously), but they aren't running to the Democrats, they are running to, well, even they aren't sure. They're running scared, I think that much is clear. A perhaps scary sign of things to come, is that Democrats are raising serious money for the Congressional elections in 2008. When they won both houses in 2006, they raised million less than the Republicans, who by leaps and bounds have historically always out raised the Democrats. As of April 2007, Democrats have out raised Republicans by millions. Money matters, and it should scare the hell out of Republicans that their traditional advantage has eroded and disappeared. Now much of that money is because Democrats are in charge of Committee Chairs now, and they have a natural advantage to raise more money because of their powerful position, but money is pouring in from elsewhere, as best evidenced by Barack Obama's $50 million raised from tens of thousands of individual donors. Republicans are looking to lose the White House and even more ground in the Congress.
Part of me worries that if the Democrats take over the entire government, the Right will do something drastic and dangerous, but mostly I figure they will do what Democrats did for six years, which is complain a lot, but accept the consequences, because it is the Republicans who dug their own grave. They had six years to do more or less whatever they wanted, and they are paying for how they chose to use that power. We're only a few months away now from January 2008's de facto national primary, and by then we'll know the candidates for 2008. The road from here to there should be very, very interesting.
Returning the focus to the debate, there were eight contenders at this debate: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and the until now unknown Mike Gravel. Many of these candidates are more or less interchangeable with regards to their positions. But a few of them stand out for a variety of reasons.
Dennis Kucinich - I didn't really care much for him in 2004. He's idealistic, which I have no problem with, I even applaud it. But he's not realistic, which is utterly necessary for any leader. The big problem with President Bush is that he can't see reality, he acts in some sort of imaginary bubble, thinking that his military answers to every problem will pound his problems into submission. But Kucinich make the same mistake back in the other direction. He more or less pledges to never use force, ever. He wants to end the use of the military as an arm of foreign policy. The problem isn't that the military is an arm of foreign policy, it's that the military is the end result of failed foreign policy. Refusing to use the military isn't just irresponsible or unrealistic, it's stupid. Sometimes you just have to use force. You don't need to invade, but sometimes surgical strikes are necessary, sometimes blockades and no-fly zones are necessary. I wonder how Kucinich would have helped the Kurds in the early 90's when Saddam tried to wipe them out. Was he going to talk Saddam out of his genocidal aims? He isn't realistic, and his attitude on foreign policy makes his position on everything else irrelevant. Biden called him out on it, indirectly, at the end of the debate, more or less saying he lives in a fantasyland, and that you sometimes need force, and he's right. On a note of lesser importance, the guy is tiny. He's like a foot shorter than whoever that girl he was with, be it his wife or daughter, either way he's tiny. 75% of my criteria for a presidential candidate is their stance on issues. The other 25% is how much I trust them, a gut feeling, about how presidential they are, because when it comes to dealing with Congress and foreign powers, those things matter. He doesn't seem presidential at all.
Mike Gravel - As it stands, I won't be voting for him, and frankly I don't even know if he'll be on the ballot to vote for at all. But there's one thing I have been dying to hear in American politics, and that is candor. Gravel is oozing candor. The problem with that is compared to the canned scripted behavior of his opponents, he sounds a bit crazy in comparison. But he is bluntly honest. I don't necessarily agree with what I heard him say, and I think some of his hyperbole was over the top, but I want to hear more from him, regardless of what it is. He has my attention, and even if I don't want to vote for him as president, I want him talking, and I want someone to give him a platform to speak on. I look forward to hearing more about him, and now that I know who he is, I plan to seek out information on him myself. Gravel stands as one of a very tiny minority of Americans in government who call a spade a spade. I am sick of spin, I am sick of talking points, I am sick of catchphrases. I want to reward candor and honesty, and that means rewarding Gravel.
Bill Richardson - I've had my eye on him for sometime. I like his experience as a governor (the only one in the race on the Democratic side), and I like a lot of what he did there. I like what he has to say on taxes, I love what he has to say on health care, which falls most in line what what I personally believe we need as a solution. Focus on prevention, focus on efficiency, focus on cutting waste out of administrative costs. He has immense foreign policy experience and has numerously been nominated for a Nobel Prize. He's underrated in my opinion, and I'm glad he got a lot of screen time tonight. I think he held his own, and I think he came closest to matching Gravel's candor and honesty, though perhaps much more reserved and professionally. I hope he can find a way to get traction in this race and move into a top tier spot, and I hope we can hear more of his great ideas. I'm looking forward to seeing what he has to say on the environment, energy independence, and foreign policy.
Barack and Hillary both sounded presidential to me, and I perhaps I alone in the world find something very compelling about Hillary Clinton. She seems honest and smart, and I know many don't agree with that, I still can't help but feel a spark of hope whenever she speaks. Their policies are well known and I won't go into them. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are the other two senators running for the office, and both are probably less well known. Biden I think came out stronger than the two. He seems more youthful and charismatic, and also I thought a lot of his answers came out more off the cuff and honest rather than canned and scripted. And that leaves John Edwards. Personally I think he had his shot and missed it, but that's not really how presidential elections work. I don't know if he has the experience or not, but he's young, and earnest, which earns him some points. And he's also fairly specific with his ideas, which I also like. All in all I have a more favorable opinion of him after this debate than I did before.
So there you have it, the eight men and woman who would be the Democratic party's leader have spoken. One wonders how the debate would have fared if Al Gore was in it, but that's something we might not see until October or November. The man has the name recognition power and the positioning to wait that long, and save both the time, money and stress of not being bashed on for the next six months. If he jumps in at the last moment, everything could change, but we'll see. Until then it's a long road, and I already like how it's going.
On Thursday, May 3rd we'll get to see ten Republican candidates square off in the same style of debate also on MSNBC at 8PM (and that's not including Newt Gingrich). Now it is going to be fascinating to see them attack both Democrats and Bush, and somehow distance themselves from both groups. This country by and large dislikes Bush, and Republicans are running from him like they are trying out for the Olympics (except for McCain, which has hurt him seriously), but they aren't running to the Democrats, they are running to, well, even they aren't sure. They're running scared, I think that much is clear. A perhaps scary sign of things to come, is that Democrats are raising serious money for the Congressional elections in 2008. When they won both houses in 2006, they raised million less than the Republicans, who by leaps and bounds have historically always out raised the Democrats. As of April 2007, Democrats have out raised Republicans by millions. Money matters, and it should scare the hell out of Republicans that their traditional advantage has eroded and disappeared. Now much of that money is because Democrats are in charge of Committee Chairs now, and they have a natural advantage to raise more money because of their powerful position, but money is pouring in from elsewhere, as best evidenced by Barack Obama's $50 million raised from tens of thousands of individual donors. Republicans are looking to lose the White House and even more ground in the Congress.
Part of me worries that if the Democrats take over the entire government, the Right will do something drastic and dangerous, but mostly I figure they will do what Democrats did for six years, which is complain a lot, but accept the consequences, because it is the Republicans who dug their own grave. They had six years to do more or less whatever they wanted, and they are paying for how they chose to use that power. We're only a few months away now from January 2008's de facto national primary, and by then we'll know the candidates for 2008. The road from here to there should be very, very interesting.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Thought Crimes
So far on this blog I've limited myself to national governmental politics. I always have an opinion on social commentary, but seldom do I participate in it. Frankly I just don't care as much about it. Nine times out of ten the complaints are sparked by the media, who then fan the flames by reporting non stop 24 hour coverage of the event that they probably started to begin with. It almost makes you wonder if they aren't all working together just to spike ratings, and if they pull names out of a jar to see who will say something shocking next week just so they have something to write about.
I heard about what Don Imus said on CNN, and I had assumed it would die soon after. If we can let Ann Coulter get away with the things she says, and if Chris Rock and Ludacris can sell millions of records and sell out concert halls, surely Imus' gaffe would be talked about, and then we'd move on to the next thing. But this was not to be. The media, playing judge, jury, and executioner decided Imus was ripe for sacrifice on the national media altar. He called the women's Rutgers basketball team "nappy headed hoes." Now, that's certainly a very rude, offensive remark, but it is it something we should fire him over? No, I don't think it is, and here's why:
We have no uniformity in America on what is right and what is wrong for a person to say. Now I have to wonder, because comedians say vile, offensive things all the time, and not only do we give them a pass for it, we pay them to say it. Hip Hop stars are the obvious icons of this sort of language and behavior. They've created an entire culture around them that degrades women into sex objects, oh, and they are stupid, and hard to please, and gold diggers. Hip Hop music isn't just social commentary on a culture already in place, it is the foundational seeds and subsequent water that planted and helped make flourish the very culture they are commenting on. When you turn yourself into a pop culture icon, and then glorify certain behaviors, you'll find millions of willing applicants to emulate your behavior. So many of us throw money at these people, rewarding them for their behavior, but the rest of us just shake our heads as if to say "what are you going to do?" Debra Dickerson can get on The Colbert Report and say that Barack Obama is less of a black person than her because he wasn't descended from Western sub-Saharan black slaves. Now to me, calling someone a nappy headed ho is rude, and ignorant. But calling someone racially inferior just because of where he was born and who his parents were is above and beyond the pale. Instead of punishment, Dickerson is a national bestseller, appears on tv talkshows, and just last week wrote a small opinion piece in TIME magazine. And you don't have to look much further than Chris Rock to find out that making fun of white men is the easiest and most acceptable form of racial and gender inequality in the country. I'm not saying that others forms don't happen, they do all the time, and they are always lambasted. Making fun of a white man? Well, that's just so damned funny!
Well let's assume that those people don't really believe the things they say. They say them for shock value, to sell records, to push books, to drive those ratings up. By not punishing people who say bad things just because they said them, we're saying that words like that have no power in and of themselves. Because it doesn't matter what you are saying really, what really matters is who you are and what you believe. Chris Rock has a free pass, he's black. Margaret Cho has a free pass, she's a woman, and Asian, and overweight to boot! Ann Coulter is, well, I don't know why she gets away with what she says, we'll just label her as the Anti-Christ, no one wants to mess with that. Enter Don Imus. He's an old white man, poster child for a racially insensitive and biased past, something America wants desperately to sweep under the rug. So why are we punishing him and not them? Is it because Imus really is a racist? If so, then what we've done is established that people should be punished for what they believe, not for what they actually say. On the offensive scale, Imus rates maybe a three or four compared to things other major national figures in the media and entertainment world say. But we don't take them at face value. We're punishing Imus for appearing to think that way. I wonder when it was we decided that the best way to fight racism was remove racists from public sight. If Imus truly is a racist, firing him isn't going to make racism go away, it's just sweeping it under the rug, and it's censoring speech and it's censoring thought, and it's just plain stupid.
Pioneers of the civil rights era laid some serious groundwork for their children, and I see a lot of people today seemingly intent on screwing it up. On paper, the races are now equal. The rest of the work should be done by the passage of time. With every passing generation, people become less and less focused on race, and more focused on people for who they are, not what they look like. My own grandfather makes racially insensitive comments from time to time, and gender comments as well. My parents rarely if ever make such comments. My brother does jokingly from time to time, but I know he's one of the most accepting, open individuals I've ever known. The passage of time naturally changes social norms, and we become more accepting as time goes on.
But hey, let's not let that stop us from firing Don Imus for his stupid gaffe, let's put him up for execution in the court of public opinion. Do you think we just made any progress in the fight to end racism by firing him? Well we didn't. The man has millions of regular listeners, and thus one could reasonably state that obviously someone agrees with him. Taking away the voice of Imus, and by proxy, the voice of his listeners harms the process of moving forward, it doesn't help it. In the national dialogue on acceptance and race relations, the media, CBS and hecklers around the country just silenced a voice. Any time in America we actively try to silence someone's voice, I don't think we've taken a step backwards, I think we've fallen down and failed entirely.
I should say that in the end, firing him would make sense if all his sponsors pulled their names from the show, and employing him was no longer profitable. Sponsors have a duty to their companies, they aren't there to support the media, they are there to use the media to sell their wares. So I can see how, in the face of the numerous cancellations from sponsors, firing Imus would make perfect business sense. I however am speaking of a different sense.
It's certainly convenient for us to wrap up all our mixed feelings on race relations, shove them onto Imus and then flush him down the toilet. I'll bet a lot of people felt really satisfied when Imus was fired, like they accomplished something. Sorry to say guys, you accomplished nothing. Firing Imus, in the face of what goes on in this country, is like giving a haircut to a gunshot victim. It might pretty the situation up a little bit, but there's still a festering wound sucking air.
I heard about what Don Imus said on CNN, and I had assumed it would die soon after. If we can let Ann Coulter get away with the things she says, and if Chris Rock and Ludacris can sell millions of records and sell out concert halls, surely Imus' gaffe would be talked about, and then we'd move on to the next thing. But this was not to be. The media, playing judge, jury, and executioner decided Imus was ripe for sacrifice on the national media altar. He called the women's Rutgers basketball team "nappy headed hoes." Now, that's certainly a very rude, offensive remark, but it is it something we should fire him over? No, I don't think it is, and here's why:
We have no uniformity in America on what is right and what is wrong for a person to say. Now I have to wonder, because comedians say vile, offensive things all the time, and not only do we give them a pass for it, we pay them to say it. Hip Hop stars are the obvious icons of this sort of language and behavior. They've created an entire culture around them that degrades women into sex objects, oh, and they are stupid, and hard to please, and gold diggers. Hip Hop music isn't just social commentary on a culture already in place, it is the foundational seeds and subsequent water that planted and helped make flourish the very culture they are commenting on. When you turn yourself into a pop culture icon, and then glorify certain behaviors, you'll find millions of willing applicants to emulate your behavior. So many of us throw money at these people, rewarding them for their behavior, but the rest of us just shake our heads as if to say "what are you going to do?" Debra Dickerson can get on The Colbert Report and say that Barack Obama is less of a black person than her because he wasn't descended from Western sub-Saharan black slaves. Now to me, calling someone a nappy headed ho is rude, and ignorant. But calling someone racially inferior just because of where he was born and who his parents were is above and beyond the pale. Instead of punishment, Dickerson is a national bestseller, appears on tv talkshows, and just last week wrote a small opinion piece in TIME magazine. And you don't have to look much further than Chris Rock to find out that making fun of white men is the easiest and most acceptable form of racial and gender inequality in the country. I'm not saying that others forms don't happen, they do all the time, and they are always lambasted. Making fun of a white man? Well, that's just so damned funny!
Well let's assume that those people don't really believe the things they say. They say them for shock value, to sell records, to push books, to drive those ratings up. By not punishing people who say bad things just because they said them, we're saying that words like that have no power in and of themselves. Because it doesn't matter what you are saying really, what really matters is who you are and what you believe. Chris Rock has a free pass, he's black. Margaret Cho has a free pass, she's a woman, and Asian, and overweight to boot! Ann Coulter is, well, I don't know why she gets away with what she says, we'll just label her as the Anti-Christ, no one wants to mess with that. Enter Don Imus. He's an old white man, poster child for a racially insensitive and biased past, something America wants desperately to sweep under the rug. So why are we punishing him and not them? Is it because Imus really is a racist? If so, then what we've done is established that people should be punished for what they believe, not for what they actually say. On the offensive scale, Imus rates maybe a three or four compared to things other major national figures in the media and entertainment world say. But we don't take them at face value. We're punishing Imus for appearing to think that way. I wonder when it was we decided that the best way to fight racism was remove racists from public sight. If Imus truly is a racist, firing him isn't going to make racism go away, it's just sweeping it under the rug, and it's censoring speech and it's censoring thought, and it's just plain stupid.
Pioneers of the civil rights era laid some serious groundwork for their children, and I see a lot of people today seemingly intent on screwing it up. On paper, the races are now equal. The rest of the work should be done by the passage of time. With every passing generation, people become less and less focused on race, and more focused on people for who they are, not what they look like. My own grandfather makes racially insensitive comments from time to time, and gender comments as well. My parents rarely if ever make such comments. My brother does jokingly from time to time, but I know he's one of the most accepting, open individuals I've ever known. The passage of time naturally changes social norms, and we become more accepting as time goes on.
But hey, let's not let that stop us from firing Don Imus for his stupid gaffe, let's put him up for execution in the court of public opinion. Do you think we just made any progress in the fight to end racism by firing him? Well we didn't. The man has millions of regular listeners, and thus one could reasonably state that obviously someone agrees with him. Taking away the voice of Imus, and by proxy, the voice of his listeners harms the process of moving forward, it doesn't help it. In the national dialogue on acceptance and race relations, the media, CBS and hecklers around the country just silenced a voice. Any time in America we actively try to silence someone's voice, I don't think we've taken a step backwards, I think we've fallen down and failed entirely.
I should say that in the end, firing him would make sense if all his sponsors pulled their names from the show, and employing him was no longer profitable. Sponsors have a duty to their companies, they aren't there to support the media, they are there to use the media to sell their wares. So I can see how, in the face of the numerous cancellations from sponsors, firing Imus would make perfect business sense. I however am speaking of a different sense.
It's certainly convenient for us to wrap up all our mixed feelings on race relations, shove them onto Imus and then flush him down the toilet. I'll bet a lot of people felt really satisfied when Imus was fired, like they accomplished something. Sorry to say guys, you accomplished nothing. Firing Imus, in the face of what goes on in this country, is like giving a haircut to a gunshot victim. It might pretty the situation up a little bit, but there's still a festering wound sucking air.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
The Imperial Presidency & A Reality Check
Just a quick note today before I head off to work.
The 20th Century, beginning with Theodore and then drastically improved upon by Franklin Roosevelt saw the rise of the Imperial Presidency. During the 19th Century, presidents before Lincoln, and ever after for awhile, had very little power at all. When phones were first installed in the White House, it was quite common for the president to answer his own phone. But all that's changed now.
Those developments have led us to President Bush, who more than anyone in recent memory embodies the Imperial Presidency. Fights between Bush and the Congress thus far have been little more than skirmishes. Under the leadership of the Republicans, the House largely went along with any and all actions taken by Bush, and with a few exceptions, gave him pretty much everything he wanted (except big ticket items like Social Security reform (which Democrats largely derailed) and Immigration reform (which his own Republicans killed)). But now with Democrats in charge, for barely 100 days, the first Congress/President fight will be over Iraq War funding.
Bush is currently criticizing the Congress basically for not giving him what he wants, and his response to that is to dig his heels in and throw a tantrum. Since when is the Presidency an all powerful position? Since when is the Congress just there to notarize all of Bush's stationary? Congress is there for a reason, and more specifically, they were vested with the power of the purse for a reason. They are specifics checks against potential power abuses by the President. If the President can't convince them that what he wants is a good idea, and he can't pay for it by himself, then it simply doesn't happen. Clinton had to put up with the same thing several times during his administration, most notably the troop withdrawal following that mess in Mogadishu in 1993.
So who does the President think he is? We didn't elect a monarch. Someone needs to give Bush a basic civics lesson. When he asks the Congress for something, it isn't a formality, it's an actual request that they can consider and deny if they so choose. So when he sends a formal request for war funding, it really is a request, and he can't draft his own legislation without them, like he seems to think he can. Just last week he rammed home his choice for the US Ambassador to Belgium, Fox, who was basically pigeonholed by the Foreign Relations Committee, by bypassing the Congress entirely and appointing him with a loophole called 'recess appointments,' which were designed to fill critical positions during sometimes lengthy recesses the Congress can take. It's a bit of an anachronism from older days when travel was longer, as were breaks. It was never meant to be a way to slip past Congress a nominee that would never otherwise pass.
This president thinks he can do anything, and thinks Congress is just a noisy bunch of administrators sitting at America's kid's table, but they aren't. I hope Democrats stonewall him all the way to the very last minute, and maybe even beyond. Because this isn't just about the Iraq War, and it's not just about Democrats and Bush. This is about the shape of the US government, the Imperial Presidency, and checks & balances. This battle is important, and Congress has to win it, lest presidents think they can walk all over the Congress whenever they want. They sidestepped the issue of War Powers four years ago when Bush tried taking us to war without them, but they can't sidestep this one. Oversight and power of the purse aren't just their abilities, they are their duties. And it's high time they started taking them seriously and started doing the jobs we elected them to do.
The 20th Century, beginning with Theodore and then drastically improved upon by Franklin Roosevelt saw the rise of the Imperial Presidency. During the 19th Century, presidents before Lincoln, and ever after for awhile, had very little power at all. When phones were first installed in the White House, it was quite common for the president to answer his own phone. But all that's changed now.
Those developments have led us to President Bush, who more than anyone in recent memory embodies the Imperial Presidency. Fights between Bush and the Congress thus far have been little more than skirmishes. Under the leadership of the Republicans, the House largely went along with any and all actions taken by Bush, and with a few exceptions, gave him pretty much everything he wanted (except big ticket items like Social Security reform (which Democrats largely derailed) and Immigration reform (which his own Republicans killed)). But now with Democrats in charge, for barely 100 days, the first Congress/President fight will be over Iraq War funding.
Bush is currently criticizing the Congress basically for not giving him what he wants, and his response to that is to dig his heels in and throw a tantrum. Since when is the Presidency an all powerful position? Since when is the Congress just there to notarize all of Bush's stationary? Congress is there for a reason, and more specifically, they were vested with the power of the purse for a reason. They are specifics checks against potential power abuses by the President. If the President can't convince them that what he wants is a good idea, and he can't pay for it by himself, then it simply doesn't happen. Clinton had to put up with the same thing several times during his administration, most notably the troop withdrawal following that mess in Mogadishu in 1993.
So who does the President think he is? We didn't elect a monarch. Someone needs to give Bush a basic civics lesson. When he asks the Congress for something, it isn't a formality, it's an actual request that they can consider and deny if they so choose. So when he sends a formal request for war funding, it really is a request, and he can't draft his own legislation without them, like he seems to think he can. Just last week he rammed home his choice for the US Ambassador to Belgium, Fox, who was basically pigeonholed by the Foreign Relations Committee, by bypassing the Congress entirely and appointing him with a loophole called 'recess appointments,' which were designed to fill critical positions during sometimes lengthy recesses the Congress can take. It's a bit of an anachronism from older days when travel was longer, as were breaks. It was never meant to be a way to slip past Congress a nominee that would never otherwise pass.
This president thinks he can do anything, and thinks Congress is just a noisy bunch of administrators sitting at America's kid's table, but they aren't. I hope Democrats stonewall him all the way to the very last minute, and maybe even beyond. Because this isn't just about the Iraq War, and it's not just about Democrats and Bush. This is about the shape of the US government, the Imperial Presidency, and checks & balances. This battle is important, and Congress has to win it, lest presidents think they can walk all over the Congress whenever they want. They sidestepped the issue of War Powers four years ago when Bush tried taking us to war without them, but they can't sidestep this one. Oversight and power of the purse aren't just their abilities, they are their duties. And it's high time they started taking them seriously and started doing the jobs we elected them to do.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Iraq's Double Edged Surge
With the debate heating up between Democrats and President Bush on Iraq war funding, I thought now might be a good time to take a fresh look at the situation as it stands and how we're currently trying to solve it. Things look dire, but there's cause for hope if we take the right actions now.
John McCain recently reported that Iraq has made great progress due to the surge of US troops Bush ordered last month. Mike Pence (R-IN) made the comment that moving about the Shorja market in Baghdad was like "a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime." McCain himself trumpeted his visit to the market saying Americans could move freely through some part of Baghdad. When asked later in the week about his comments, he responded, "I just came from one," he replied sharply. "Things are better and there are encouraging signs." He added, "Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today." Pence went even further, to say "the most deeply moving thing for me was to mix and mingle unfettered."
What Pence and McCain both left out was that they were wearing bullet proof vests, surrounded by 100 armed soldiers, two blackhawk helicopters, and gunships. Does that sound like a nice afternoon stroll to you? Does a company of soldiers and a couple helicopters for gunship support sound like something the average Iraqi can take advantage of to secure their safety? Local merchants were aghast when told about McCain's comments. Ali Jassim Faiyad, an electronics shop owner in Shorja said "the security procedures are abnormal!" and "they paralyzed the market when they came, this was only for the media. This will not change anything." It's a refreshingly candid appraisal to contrast against McCain's assertions of safety. Despite efforts to secure the market, including restricting car access and erecting blast walls, dozens of people have died in the market in attacks, 61 alone during a three pronged attack on February 12th. In recent weeks, snipers have taken up rooftop positions in the area to pick off people indiscriminately, and gunfights have broken out between Iraqi forces and insurgents. During McCain’s visit, he was assailed with questions by the shopkeepers over what would be done to increase their security, and to tell him how unsafe they felt. Ali Youssef, a glassmaker in the market witnessed these actions. "Everybody complained to them. We told them we were harmed,” he said. "This area here is very dangerous," continued Mr. Youssef, “They cannot secure it." Youssef lost his shop in the attack on February 12th.
After McCain left, shopkeepers expressed their discontent with his visit, saying he was only there for his own purposes, to make himself look good, and the people he visited would be left in the dust. They also feared increase risk of attack, as previous announcements from the Iraqi government of safety and progress usually just gave insurgents another item to add to their list of targets.
McCain might just be on to something though. It appears attacks and violence in general has inched lower during the month of March…in Baghdad. But what about Iraq as a whole? According to the Manilla Times, 1,869 Iraqi civilians were killed in the month of March, after the security crackdown started. To compare, the pre-crackdown death toll for the nation’s civilians, for the month of February, was 1,646. In those two months alone, Iraq has lose more citizens than the US has lost soldiers during the entire war. US military casualties for March were more than double those suffered by Iraqis, suggesting US forces were taking a much more frontline role. That tells me one important thing, that after four years of war, Iraqi forces are still not capable of launching their own missions and rooting out insurgents by themselves. So much for all those optimistic reports of Iraqi units coming online any day now.
So what exactly is going on in the rest of the country? So much of the focus for the past few months has been on Baghdad alone, as if Baghdad were the only place the war was being fought. Next week’s TIME Magazine has a four page article detailing American combat operations and the situation in Diyala Province in Iraq. In November of 2006, when US troops deployed away from Diyala, insurgents took control of the area. A line of relatively peaceful farming hamlets and religiously diverse neighborhoods became sectarian enclaves separated by violent reprisals, turning what was once a calm valley into an unraveled death knell. America struck back in Diyala in February, and at the end of March reclaimed the Qubah, a small village where insurgents lived in safety. After the attack, US troops wrote numbers on the back of men’s necks and women’s hands to track their movements after curfew. Seeing the image of them writing the numbers on their hands and necks with a Sharpie brought to mind images of number tattoos on the arms of Jews in concentration camps. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not comparing US troops to Nazis or Iraqis to Jews. Far from it in fact, I think the US troops there are often a saving grace to the locals, but the images are hard not to connect.
It may be that the Bush Administration surge in Baghdad is doing exactly what we wanted, but it’s having an opposite effect elsewhere in the nation. Displaced insurgents fleeing a US crackdown in Baghdad are heading out into the countryside to join fights already in progress against undermanned US troops in the field. They are also turning once peaceful villages and cities into dens of sectarian hate. Wherever these insurgents go, they incite sectarian violence, killing and partisanship. In many cities, couples that don’t share Shi’a or Sunni as a religion can’t even get their parents blessing to marry anymore. Small arms attacks rose on Diyala against US troops from 33 in July to 98 in February. Last July there were three suicide bombings in Diyala, this February there were five in one week. On some streets in Buhriz, one of the more violent villages in Diyala, US troops face a hailstorm of mortars and shoulder fired rockets. A Stryker battalion commander in Buhriz said he lost 20 men and women from his unit, and more than 800 civilians have died in the fighting.
To underpin the differences between then and now, the situation in Diyala wasn’t always so bad. In November, tensions between Shiites, who make up 30% of the population, and Sunnis, were kept in check by tribal leaders. Captain Mike Few was stationed just outside Baqubah (the provincial capital) at the time, he said “it was manageable in the beginning. The sheikhs were working it out.” But when the US moved forces to Baghdad, sectarian violence exploded. Last year Prime Minister al-Maliki’s largely Shiite government choked off food supplies and fuel to the region, and as the resources dwindled, tribal violence escalated. Sunnis, who had gathered in the area to support al-Zarqawi, the now dead al Qaeda leader, launched an extermination campaign against Shiites, who replied in kind. It’s no surprise that according to a recent poll, as many as 70% of Iraqis don’t want US forces to leave. The locals want to help, in fact a local sheikh tried to help Captain Few and his troops by providing detailed maps of the area, with positions of insurgents, likely ammo storage areas and arms caches. The problem isn’t a lack of willingness from locals, it’s partly a lack of troops, partly a lack of local government, and partly a lack of support from the national government. But even if all that were solved, it would still take years to root out the deep seated rivalries and enmities that now exist all over the country. Troops alone won’t solve the problem, as Colonel Sutherland, the man tasked with clearing out Diyala said, “I can kill all day long. It will do no good.”
Diyala is a poster child of the problem in Iraq. Even a 20,000 troop surge to pacify Baghdad has met with limited success and only bolstered attacks elsewhere in the nation. Finding a station wagon riddled with bullet holes and finding a dead family inside, or a burlap bag with the decapitated head of a family member on your front door step is something every Iraqi has to worry or think about every day in Iraq. Bush’s surge should still be given some time before a judgement is passed, but early signs aren’t cause for celebration. It should be noted that McCain also said in recent speeches that he can’t guarantee success in Iraq. That is some refreshing candor from a US Presidential candidate. Perhaps even enough to offset the utter spin from his previous statements.
So what are we left with? Bush and McCain are wrong, Iraq is still a giant, deadly mess. A half trillion dollars and 3,200 US troop deaths later and I don’t think we’re any closer to a peaceful, independent Iraqi nation than we were after “major combat operations” ended. Pacifying Iraq means a massive troop influx. We need to root out the entire country of insurgents and hold every inch of ground we take, not allowing them to rush back in afterwards. There needs to be nowhere in the country they can escape to and simple wait us out. Right now Cheney and Bush accuse Democrats of setting a date for surrender, that by doing so, all insurgents will have to do is mark a date on their calendars and wait us out. But how is that any different than what they are doing under Bush’s stewardship of the war? Right now, with any number of places to hide, the insurgents have no problem whatsoever waiting us out, because they don’t really have any pressure to hurry up. They are perfectly content to seed discontent all over the country, watching us chase after them like a giant international version of whack-a-mole. Ultimately I think Bush is firing blanks with that one. What we are doing now, in concert with Iraqi governmental ineptitude isn’t working. If the Democrats can be credited with anything, it’s rocking a boat that needs some rocking. Al-Maliki needs a kick in the pants, and maybe the threat of a US troop withdrawal will do just that.
The status quo isn’t going to cut it. But I’m more convinced now than I was before that we need to fix what we broke, and I think that means a massive, massive new troop commitment to Iraq. We need to send enough troops to cover every city and village in the country, to root out arms caches, to search for guns and munitions and to capture insurgents. I refuse to settle for our current efforts. If we aren’t going to commit more troops, then I fully support efforts made by the Democrats to try and force Bush and al-Maliki’s hands. If we aren’t doing anything productive, why be there at all?
The efforts that need to be made aren’t entirely military however. We need to fix the Iraqi government and root out corruption, all things that were brought to light in the Iraq Commission Report, but have since gone ignored by the Administration. Further, we need to engage regional powers in diplomacy. I think Pelosi was right to head to Israel and Syria to open discussions over the situation with them. I find it curious, and ridiculously partisan of Bush to attack Pelosi for her Syria visit when he remained utterly silent over a Republican visit to Syria’s president the previous week. The discussion always seems to be hinged around “should we stay or should we go?” but that’s far too simple a question. We’re not asking: “What’s next?” If we stay, what’s next? If we go, what’s next? If we can’t answer the second question, then answering the first will only get us into far more trouble.
It’s time to have a serious discussion on the situation over there. Democrats would do well to poke holes in Bush’s war plan and offer their own plan for success. They need to put the discussion on equal grounds. Say what is necessary for a victory, and then we can discuss whether or not we have what it takes to win. Bush is making victory sound like something that is always just over the next hill, whereas Democrats are making it sound like victory is at the base of a rainbow. Both of them are wrong, as victory is neither that near, nor that impossible to achieve. Bush is a lame duck, he has nothing to lose by actually being honest with us. His name is political black death to his party, his legacy is currently one of blunder and error. Democrats are losing every major fight they’ve tried to pick with Republicans, who stone wall with Bush’s support, any measure they put forth. Neither of them have anything to lose by having an honest discussion. But I think neither of them realize that putting aside scoring partisan points would probably score them both a lot of points with a populace just looking for a way out of the mess over there.
Source for quotes: AOL Time Warner
John McCain recently reported that Iraq has made great progress due to the surge of US troops Bush ordered last month. Mike Pence (R-IN) made the comment that moving about the Shorja market in Baghdad was like "a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime." McCain himself trumpeted his visit to the market saying Americans could move freely through some part of Baghdad. When asked later in the week about his comments, he responded, "I just came from one," he replied sharply. "Things are better and there are encouraging signs." He added, "Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today." Pence went even further, to say "the most deeply moving thing for me was to mix and mingle unfettered."
What Pence and McCain both left out was that they were wearing bullet proof vests, surrounded by 100 armed soldiers, two blackhawk helicopters, and gunships. Does that sound like a nice afternoon stroll to you? Does a company of soldiers and a couple helicopters for gunship support sound like something the average Iraqi can take advantage of to secure their safety? Local merchants were aghast when told about McCain's comments. Ali Jassim Faiyad, an electronics shop owner in Shorja said "the security procedures are abnormal!" and "they paralyzed the market when they came, this was only for the media. This will not change anything." It's a refreshingly candid appraisal to contrast against McCain's assertions of safety. Despite efforts to secure the market, including restricting car access and erecting blast walls, dozens of people have died in the market in attacks, 61 alone during a three pronged attack on February 12th. In recent weeks, snipers have taken up rooftop positions in the area to pick off people indiscriminately, and gunfights have broken out between Iraqi forces and insurgents. During McCain’s visit, he was assailed with questions by the shopkeepers over what would be done to increase their security, and to tell him how unsafe they felt. Ali Youssef, a glassmaker in the market witnessed these actions. "Everybody complained to them. We told them we were harmed,” he said. "This area here is very dangerous," continued Mr. Youssef, “They cannot secure it." Youssef lost his shop in the attack on February 12th.
After McCain left, shopkeepers expressed their discontent with his visit, saying he was only there for his own purposes, to make himself look good, and the people he visited would be left in the dust. They also feared increase risk of attack, as previous announcements from the Iraqi government of safety and progress usually just gave insurgents another item to add to their list of targets.
McCain might just be on to something though. It appears attacks and violence in general has inched lower during the month of March…in Baghdad. But what about Iraq as a whole? According to the Manilla Times, 1,869 Iraqi civilians were killed in the month of March, after the security crackdown started. To compare, the pre-crackdown death toll for the nation’s civilians, for the month of February, was 1,646. In those two months alone, Iraq has lose more citizens than the US has lost soldiers during the entire war. US military casualties for March were more than double those suffered by Iraqis, suggesting US forces were taking a much more frontline role. That tells me one important thing, that after four years of war, Iraqi forces are still not capable of launching their own missions and rooting out insurgents by themselves. So much for all those optimistic reports of Iraqi units coming online any day now.
So what exactly is going on in the rest of the country? So much of the focus for the past few months has been on Baghdad alone, as if Baghdad were the only place the war was being fought. Next week’s TIME Magazine has a four page article detailing American combat operations and the situation in Diyala Province in Iraq. In November of 2006, when US troops deployed away from Diyala, insurgents took control of the area. A line of relatively peaceful farming hamlets and religiously diverse neighborhoods became sectarian enclaves separated by violent reprisals, turning what was once a calm valley into an unraveled death knell. America struck back in Diyala in February, and at the end of March reclaimed the Qubah, a small village where insurgents lived in safety. After the attack, US troops wrote numbers on the back of men’s necks and women’s hands to track their movements after curfew. Seeing the image of them writing the numbers on their hands and necks with a Sharpie brought to mind images of number tattoos on the arms of Jews in concentration camps. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not comparing US troops to Nazis or Iraqis to Jews. Far from it in fact, I think the US troops there are often a saving grace to the locals, but the images are hard not to connect.
It may be that the Bush Administration surge in Baghdad is doing exactly what we wanted, but it’s having an opposite effect elsewhere in the nation. Displaced insurgents fleeing a US crackdown in Baghdad are heading out into the countryside to join fights already in progress against undermanned US troops in the field. They are also turning once peaceful villages and cities into dens of sectarian hate. Wherever these insurgents go, they incite sectarian violence, killing and partisanship. In many cities, couples that don’t share Shi’a or Sunni as a religion can’t even get their parents blessing to marry anymore. Small arms attacks rose on Diyala against US troops from 33 in July to 98 in February. Last July there were three suicide bombings in Diyala, this February there were five in one week. On some streets in Buhriz, one of the more violent villages in Diyala, US troops face a hailstorm of mortars and shoulder fired rockets. A Stryker battalion commander in Buhriz said he lost 20 men and women from his unit, and more than 800 civilians have died in the fighting.
To underpin the differences between then and now, the situation in Diyala wasn’t always so bad. In November, tensions between Shiites, who make up 30% of the population, and Sunnis, were kept in check by tribal leaders. Captain Mike Few was stationed just outside Baqubah (the provincial capital) at the time, he said “it was manageable in the beginning. The sheikhs were working it out.” But when the US moved forces to Baghdad, sectarian violence exploded. Last year Prime Minister al-Maliki’s largely Shiite government choked off food supplies and fuel to the region, and as the resources dwindled, tribal violence escalated. Sunnis, who had gathered in the area to support al-Zarqawi, the now dead al Qaeda leader, launched an extermination campaign against Shiites, who replied in kind. It’s no surprise that according to a recent poll, as many as 70% of Iraqis don’t want US forces to leave. The locals want to help, in fact a local sheikh tried to help Captain Few and his troops by providing detailed maps of the area, with positions of insurgents, likely ammo storage areas and arms caches. The problem isn’t a lack of willingness from locals, it’s partly a lack of troops, partly a lack of local government, and partly a lack of support from the national government. But even if all that were solved, it would still take years to root out the deep seated rivalries and enmities that now exist all over the country. Troops alone won’t solve the problem, as Colonel Sutherland, the man tasked with clearing out Diyala said, “I can kill all day long. It will do no good.”
Diyala is a poster child of the problem in Iraq. Even a 20,000 troop surge to pacify Baghdad has met with limited success and only bolstered attacks elsewhere in the nation. Finding a station wagon riddled with bullet holes and finding a dead family inside, or a burlap bag with the decapitated head of a family member on your front door step is something every Iraqi has to worry or think about every day in Iraq. Bush’s surge should still be given some time before a judgement is passed, but early signs aren’t cause for celebration. It should be noted that McCain also said in recent speeches that he can’t guarantee success in Iraq. That is some refreshing candor from a US Presidential candidate. Perhaps even enough to offset the utter spin from his previous statements.
So what are we left with? Bush and McCain are wrong, Iraq is still a giant, deadly mess. A half trillion dollars and 3,200 US troop deaths later and I don’t think we’re any closer to a peaceful, independent Iraqi nation than we were after “major combat operations” ended. Pacifying Iraq means a massive troop influx. We need to root out the entire country of insurgents and hold every inch of ground we take, not allowing them to rush back in afterwards. There needs to be nowhere in the country they can escape to and simple wait us out. Right now Cheney and Bush accuse Democrats of setting a date for surrender, that by doing so, all insurgents will have to do is mark a date on their calendars and wait us out. But how is that any different than what they are doing under Bush’s stewardship of the war? Right now, with any number of places to hide, the insurgents have no problem whatsoever waiting us out, because they don’t really have any pressure to hurry up. They are perfectly content to seed discontent all over the country, watching us chase after them like a giant international version of whack-a-mole. Ultimately I think Bush is firing blanks with that one. What we are doing now, in concert with Iraqi governmental ineptitude isn’t working. If the Democrats can be credited with anything, it’s rocking a boat that needs some rocking. Al-Maliki needs a kick in the pants, and maybe the threat of a US troop withdrawal will do just that.
The status quo isn’t going to cut it. But I’m more convinced now than I was before that we need to fix what we broke, and I think that means a massive, massive new troop commitment to Iraq. We need to send enough troops to cover every city and village in the country, to root out arms caches, to search for guns and munitions and to capture insurgents. I refuse to settle for our current efforts. If we aren’t going to commit more troops, then I fully support efforts made by the Democrats to try and force Bush and al-Maliki’s hands. If we aren’t doing anything productive, why be there at all?
The efforts that need to be made aren’t entirely military however. We need to fix the Iraqi government and root out corruption, all things that were brought to light in the Iraq Commission Report, but have since gone ignored by the Administration. Further, we need to engage regional powers in diplomacy. I think Pelosi was right to head to Israel and Syria to open discussions over the situation with them. I find it curious, and ridiculously partisan of Bush to attack Pelosi for her Syria visit when he remained utterly silent over a Republican visit to Syria’s president the previous week. The discussion always seems to be hinged around “should we stay or should we go?” but that’s far too simple a question. We’re not asking: “What’s next?” If we stay, what’s next? If we go, what’s next? If we can’t answer the second question, then answering the first will only get us into far more trouble.
It’s time to have a serious discussion on the situation over there. Democrats would do well to poke holes in Bush’s war plan and offer their own plan for success. They need to put the discussion on equal grounds. Say what is necessary for a victory, and then we can discuss whether or not we have what it takes to win. Bush is making victory sound like something that is always just over the next hill, whereas Democrats are making it sound like victory is at the base of a rainbow. Both of them are wrong, as victory is neither that near, nor that impossible to achieve. Bush is a lame duck, he has nothing to lose by actually being honest with us. His name is political black death to his party, his legacy is currently one of blunder and error. Democrats are losing every major fight they’ve tried to pick with Republicans, who stone wall with Bush’s support, any measure they put forth. Neither of them have anything to lose by having an honest discussion. But I think neither of them realize that putting aside scoring partisan points would probably score them both a lot of points with a populace just looking for a way out of the mess over there.
Source for quotes: AOL Time Warner
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Who Supports The Troops?
Troops are gathering and war is brewing. No I'm not talking about the war in Iraq, or the forgotten war in Aghanistan, I'm talking of course about the conflict between Congressional Democrats and the President. We're hearing a lot from the Republicans, and especially Bush lately about how Democrats are trying to "set a date for surrender" in the war in Iraq. Statements like that, and others, are being used to paint Democrats as unpatriotic and unfriendly to the troops. Democrats on the other hand are saying Bush is out of touch with what the people want.
Bush's popularity is at a near all time low, hanging around 33% with a 60% disapproval rating. A majority of Americans now feel the war was a mistake, and that same majority feel we'll never be able to stablize the country.
We need to ask ourselves some serious questions about this war, and about how this country gets itself into and prosecute wars. Who gets to define our goals? The President is setting our goal as complete safety in Iraq and a stable democracy. I thought our goal was to get their WMDs? Well we did that, they aren't there, so why are we? Okay, okay, so we upset their fragile balance, and we owe it to them to try and fix what we broke. Half a trillion dollars later, more than 3,000 dead later, hundreds of thousands of unhappy troops that are scarred for life after trying to help Iraq...and we have seemingly little to show for it.
So the Democrats want to bring the troops home, and Bush wants them to stay for what really is an unspecified period of time. All the while our ability to push and prod other dangerous areas of the world is severely hampered, our military hardware is falling apart, and our tab for the military is exploding out of control. It's time to consider America first, and get out of there. Our goals there have changed multiple times, and no matter how hard we've tried, we're unable to solve a centuries old conflict that dissident movements are intent on inflaming. So we leave. We never should have gone in the first place, and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be.
But I have to ask, who is to blame in this battle between the President and the Congress? Are the Democrats letting down the troops by not giving Bush carte blanche? Or is the President at fault for not bringing home the troops when the mission went south? Ultimately, the President has to look to the welfare of the nation. Bush felt that abandoning Afghanistan to terrorists was okay, in order to attack Iraq, so I wonder why leaving Iraq wouldn't be okay as well. Democrats still want to leave a force there to fight insurgents and to train Iraqis, but we can't hold their hands anymore. It's time to fly or fall for Iraq. Democrats want to bring the troops home, want to end the suffering, want to repair our image abroad. I think what they have in mind is best for our long term security, as opposed to Bush's half effort that is only meeting with marginal success.
The battle right now is over funding. Democrats want an order to recall troops mixed into the funding bill, Bush refuses to sign it and will veto. If Democrats keep sending him a bill with funds and he keeps vetoing it, and refuses to pull them out, then who is being irresponsible to the troops? The Democrats want to keep them funded, and then want to keep them safe and in America. Bush wants to keep them funded and in Iraq, and refuses to give ground. I say if the President refuses to act as a responsible chief by bringing home the troops when the well runs dry, then he is to blame. The bright side of a democracy is rule by the people, and it's time for him to listen.
Bush's popularity is at a near all time low, hanging around 33% with a 60% disapproval rating. A majority of Americans now feel the war was a mistake, and that same majority feel we'll never be able to stablize the country.
We need to ask ourselves some serious questions about this war, and about how this country gets itself into and prosecute wars. Who gets to define our goals? The President is setting our goal as complete safety in Iraq and a stable democracy. I thought our goal was to get their WMDs? Well we did that, they aren't there, so why are we? Okay, okay, so we upset their fragile balance, and we owe it to them to try and fix what we broke. Half a trillion dollars later, more than 3,000 dead later, hundreds of thousands of unhappy troops that are scarred for life after trying to help Iraq...and we have seemingly little to show for it.
So the Democrats want to bring the troops home, and Bush wants them to stay for what really is an unspecified period of time. All the while our ability to push and prod other dangerous areas of the world is severely hampered, our military hardware is falling apart, and our tab for the military is exploding out of control. It's time to consider America first, and get out of there. Our goals there have changed multiple times, and no matter how hard we've tried, we're unable to solve a centuries old conflict that dissident movements are intent on inflaming. So we leave. We never should have gone in the first place, and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be.
But I have to ask, who is to blame in this battle between the President and the Congress? Are the Democrats letting down the troops by not giving Bush carte blanche? Or is the President at fault for not bringing home the troops when the mission went south? Ultimately, the President has to look to the welfare of the nation. Bush felt that abandoning Afghanistan to terrorists was okay, in order to attack Iraq, so I wonder why leaving Iraq wouldn't be okay as well. Democrats still want to leave a force there to fight insurgents and to train Iraqis, but we can't hold their hands anymore. It's time to fly or fall for Iraq. Democrats want to bring the troops home, want to end the suffering, want to repair our image abroad. I think what they have in mind is best for our long term security, as opposed to Bush's half effort that is only meeting with marginal success.
The battle right now is over funding. Democrats want an order to recall troops mixed into the funding bill, Bush refuses to sign it and will veto. If Democrats keep sending him a bill with funds and he keeps vetoing it, and refuses to pull them out, then who is being irresponsible to the troops? The Democrats want to keep them funded, and then want to keep them safe and in America. Bush wants to keep them funded and in Iraq, and refuses to give ground. I say if the President refuses to act as a responsible chief by bringing home the troops when the well runs dry, then he is to blame. The bright side of a democracy is rule by the people, and it's time for him to listen.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Democrats in Charge
So as of yesterday, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are now in charge of the Congress. I'd be happier if the younger crop of Democrats were in charge, like say, Barrack Obama or even Hillary Clinton, who may not be younger age wise, but she's still part of the younger crop. Some see this as the sign that the end is near. Some say that a revolution is upon us and we've averted disaster.
I don't like going to either extreme like that, but the first few actions of these Democrats is promising, and Republicans look silly in their responses. The first act of the Democrats, to reinstitue "Pay-Go" (pay as you go, only spend money you have, don't borrow from foreign banks), was a great move. I've been wondering for years when the so called "fiscally Conservative" Republicans would finally get back to doing what they used to do best, shrink government and reduce spending. Instead, they reduced income and increased spending. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that when you are spending more than you make, you're in trouble. This from the same Congress that made it a law to increase consumer payments to their credit card issuers to pay down consumer debt faster.
Enough Republican bashing though, their hegemony is over, and it's time to look to the future, figure out how to clean up their mess, and get over the last 12 years or so of political divisiveness. Democrats are trying to end earmarks, which spend billions of taxpayer dollars on pork barrel projects. They're saying no to wasteful tax cuts, to wasteful spending, to billions more spent on the military when the first hundreds of billions were never even blinked at before the checks were signed. The Republican response is the same old tired "Democrats want to raise your taxes." Give it up guys! You've wasted billions, maybe even trillions of dollars for years irresponsibly, and now we have to clean up your mess. We'll do it by cutting billions in spending, but it might also mean raising taxes to pay for the giveaways you gave to the richy riches of the nation. The middle class sees right through it, the poor see through it, and we're sick of your partisan, decade old attacks, so either stop it, or at least find some new relevant material to hit the Democrats with.
But that's just the start of what Democrats want to do. To be honest, they won't get half of what they want, because half of their new initiatives cost money, and I don't think they'll be able to offset all the costs to pay for them under their own rules. But let's talk about another of their big talk items, Bush and the war in Iraq. Bush this week will unveil a request for 20,000 or more troops, and billions more in spending. Democrats have already said they will not write a blank check like Republicans did. Bush has to actually justify his request, what he thinks it would solve, why he wants it, and why it actually might be worth it. Finally. Let me say it again, finally. Congressional oversight has been missing for at least the last six years, during the Bush presidency. I'm not saying I want them to say no to Bush automatically, but finally we're going to hear them ask for his justification, his reasoning, what he thinks will be accomplished, and if we're lucky, some actual specifics rather than generalities. If Bush wants something, he can't just ask and get it now, he has to tell us all the details, or Congress will say no, and he'll either have to find the money somewhere else, or he'll make a foolhardy blunder.
The Democrats have plenty of other ideas. They want to raise the minimum wage, which has a decent chance of passing. They want to cut the interest rate on college loans, which is 50/50, and is more likely to get a 25% reduction, rather than a 50%. They want to overhaul education, look into Katrina fraud, overhaul Congressional ethics rules, enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations, increase money for port security, eliminate the AMT (which is starting to hit middle class families), and this isn't their 2 year plan, this is their 100 hour plan. It's ambitious, and not likely to succeed entirely, but it's exciting, and most people can't argue with what they want to do. The only question is, can they actually do it?
I don't like going to either extreme like that, but the first few actions of these Democrats is promising, and Republicans look silly in their responses. The first act of the Democrats, to reinstitue "Pay-Go" (pay as you go, only spend money you have, don't borrow from foreign banks), was a great move. I've been wondering for years when the so called "fiscally Conservative" Republicans would finally get back to doing what they used to do best, shrink government and reduce spending. Instead, they reduced income and increased spending. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that when you are spending more than you make, you're in trouble. This from the same Congress that made it a law to increase consumer payments to their credit card issuers to pay down consumer debt faster.
Enough Republican bashing though, their hegemony is over, and it's time to look to the future, figure out how to clean up their mess, and get over the last 12 years or so of political divisiveness. Democrats are trying to end earmarks, which spend billions of taxpayer dollars on pork barrel projects. They're saying no to wasteful tax cuts, to wasteful spending, to billions more spent on the military when the first hundreds of billions were never even blinked at before the checks were signed. The Republican response is the same old tired "Democrats want to raise your taxes." Give it up guys! You've wasted billions, maybe even trillions of dollars for years irresponsibly, and now we have to clean up your mess. We'll do it by cutting billions in spending, but it might also mean raising taxes to pay for the giveaways you gave to the richy riches of the nation. The middle class sees right through it, the poor see through it, and we're sick of your partisan, decade old attacks, so either stop it, or at least find some new relevant material to hit the Democrats with.
But that's just the start of what Democrats want to do. To be honest, they won't get half of what they want, because half of their new initiatives cost money, and I don't think they'll be able to offset all the costs to pay for them under their own rules. But let's talk about another of their big talk items, Bush and the war in Iraq. Bush this week will unveil a request for 20,000 or more troops, and billions more in spending. Democrats have already said they will not write a blank check like Republicans did. Bush has to actually justify his request, what he thinks it would solve, why he wants it, and why it actually might be worth it. Finally. Let me say it again, finally. Congressional oversight has been missing for at least the last six years, during the Bush presidency. I'm not saying I want them to say no to Bush automatically, but finally we're going to hear them ask for his justification, his reasoning, what he thinks will be accomplished, and if we're lucky, some actual specifics rather than generalities. If Bush wants something, he can't just ask and get it now, he has to tell us all the details, or Congress will say no, and he'll either have to find the money somewhere else, or he'll make a foolhardy blunder.
The Democrats have plenty of other ideas. They want to raise the minimum wage, which has a decent chance of passing. They want to cut the interest rate on college loans, which is 50/50, and is more likely to get a 25% reduction, rather than a 50%. They want to overhaul education, look into Katrina fraud, overhaul Congressional ethics rules, enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations, increase money for port security, eliminate the AMT (which is starting to hit middle class families), and this isn't their 2 year plan, this is their 100 hour plan. It's ambitious, and not likely to succeed entirely, but it's exciting, and most people can't argue with what they want to do. The only question is, can they actually do it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)