Friday, May 2, 2008
McCain's souljah
What Ross said, to some degree. McCain's attempts to appeal both to the public and to movement conservatives have led to things like an absolute focus on porkbusting, largely because conservatives don't much like pork, the public doesn't much like pork, and he's a deficit hawk (in theory). But pork is not a salient issue in today's world. The economy, healthcare, Iraq--these are the biggest issues out there. Campaigns don't get to unilaterally decide which issues are in play. So McCain, if he were to follow Bush's example (as Ross said) would have to flip on one of those issues. The problem is that it's harder to imagine three issues upon which the GOP is more dogmatic than those three: how long have we heard Republicans inveigh about the horrors of socialized medicine? McCain appears to be a true dead-ender in Iraq, so nothing doing there. And I suppose he could try to maneuver with respect to the economy, but he's come out hard right on his economic plan, and anything less than huge tax cuts are going to leave the Norquist gang unhappy. This is where McCain's porkbusting emphasis comes in, but he's been basically trying to argue that pork is responsible for the recession, which is stupid and unconvincing. Then again, that's all he can do--one senses McCain desperately trying to hold the GOP coalition together with both hands, not wanting to piss anyone off. I wonder if he'll actually manage to keep it together.
So, what major issue could McCain use to Souljah his way to the top? Actually, the economy would probably be the easiest way. What if McCain were to abandon his economic plan in the general election, say he's reconsidered, and that he's going to try to balance the budget before talking about any tax cuts? The Wall Street Journal editorial board would go batshit, but I suspect that most actual conservatives would support this, and it would actually give him an issue upon which to go after Obama on the right (I often sense that Norquist's power is largely illusory anyway. If the Republican nominee told him that there wouldn't be any tax cuts and that he should suck it up, I suspect he would do so). Plus, this would be a rare opportunity for McCain, as he'd be able to break with Bush and still be conservative. As it stands, Obama is proposing an expensive (~$50 bil) healthcare plan that will largely be financed when Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010. So is Clinton. McCain is proposing a huge (over $1 tril) series of tax cuts that will not be offset by anything, save some 20-30 billion from tax cuts. He is, definitionally, the least fiscally conservative candidate in the race. I suspect that his heart is with the balanced budget stuff, so he should follow his instincts, I think.
So, what major issue could McCain use to Souljah his way to the top? Actually, the economy would probably be the easiest way. What if McCain were to abandon his economic plan in the general election, say he's reconsidered, and that he's going to try to balance the budget before talking about any tax cuts? The Wall Street Journal editorial board would go batshit, but I suspect that most actual conservatives would support this, and it would actually give him an issue upon which to go after Obama on the right (I often sense that Norquist's power is largely illusory anyway. If the Republican nominee told him that there wouldn't be any tax cuts and that he should suck it up, I suspect he would do so). Plus, this would be a rare opportunity for McCain, as he'd be able to break with Bush and still be conservative. As it stands, Obama is proposing an expensive (~$50 bil) healthcare plan that will largely be financed when Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010. So is Clinton. McCain is proposing a huge (over $1 tril) series of tax cuts that will not be offset by anything, save some 20-30 billion from tax cuts. He is, definitionally, the least fiscally conservative candidate in the race. I suspect that his heart is with the balanced budget stuff, so he should follow his instincts, I think.
Is John McCain insane?
Enough with the goddamn earmarks, already! We know you don't like them, and we also know that you don't seem to have any idea what they are or what they are used for. Just get it on the record and move on, senator.
It's the McCain process in microcosm--there's always one transcendent issue that he takes a "principled" stand on because it's a great generational issue, or something. Former entries on the list: campaign finance reform, climate change, immigration, Iraq, and steroids in baseball. Now it's earmarks. He gets in a pique about these things, talks incessantly about how important they are, how important it is that we confront them, etc., and three months later he's on to something new. Now, some of those issues are pretty damn important (namely, Iraq and climate change) and he's right on a few of them. Still, it's easy to forget how annoying McCain can be, which derives largely from the man's colossal sense of self-righteousness and superior morality.
Then again, when you're a Coolidge balanced-budgets conservative deep down in a party that demands huge tax cuts ad infinitum, this is the sort of line that you have to take. I'm sure that the average American taxpayer is really going to appreciate the $300 they'll get back from earmarks, though Israel might not appreciate not getting new fighter planes. But, hey, they're building bridges to nowhere in Alaska! That's the real travesty here. Actually, if he's really, really angry about wasteful spending, McCain ought to endorse Mark Begich and Ethan Berkowitz for, respectively, U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative from Alaska. They're Democrats taking on Ted Stevens and Don Young, two of the most corrupt (and hated) members of congress. Once he does that I'll start to think he's tough on wasteful spending. I'm not holding my breath.
I'm beginning to think that John McCain is either not really that bright or not especially courageous.
It's the McCain process in microcosm--there's always one transcendent issue that he takes a "principled" stand on because it's a great generational issue, or something. Former entries on the list: campaign finance reform, climate change, immigration, Iraq, and steroids in baseball. Now it's earmarks. He gets in a pique about these things, talks incessantly about how important they are, how important it is that we confront them, etc., and three months later he's on to something new. Now, some of those issues are pretty damn important (namely, Iraq and climate change) and he's right on a few of them. Still, it's easy to forget how annoying McCain can be, which derives largely from the man's colossal sense of self-righteousness and superior morality.
Then again, when you're a Coolidge balanced-budgets conservative deep down in a party that demands huge tax cuts ad infinitum, this is the sort of line that you have to take. I'm sure that the average American taxpayer is really going to appreciate the $300 they'll get back from earmarks, though Israel might not appreciate not getting new fighter planes. But, hey, they're building bridges to nowhere in Alaska! That's the real travesty here. Actually, if he's really, really angry about wasteful spending, McCain ought to endorse Mark Begich and Ethan Berkowitz for, respectively, U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative from Alaska. They're Democrats taking on Ted Stevens and Don Young, two of the most corrupt (and hated) members of congress. Once he does that I'll start to think he's tough on wasteful spending. I'm not holding my breath.
I'm beginning to think that John McCain is either not really that bright or not especially courageous.
Patriotism
I'm struck by how meta the whole patriotism thing has become, especially among the more right-leaning among us. How does one display their patriotism? Well, by waving the flag and so on--in other words, patriotism is displayed by displays of patriotism. Well, at least it's symmetrical. And evidently the right's version of patriotism means not talking shit about the government, and especially the president (except, I suppose, when a Democrat is in office, in which case having prominent citizens publicly wish for high-profile assassinations or natural disasters is just dandy). I find the right's version of patriotism to be interesting in its shallowness and in how self-serving it is, especially when one actually listens to the "most patriotic" of all citizens, the religious right (of course). They do nothing but bitch about this country. Seriously, I've spent a lot of time around such people, and they're always complaining about our laws (too lenient on criminals, too lenient on abortion, etc.), our institutions (liberal courts, for one), and our society (moving away from God). These folks are unpatriotic by their own standards, but I don't think they're unpatriotic. They have specific complaints about where this country is headed--complaints that I think are wrong-headed, irresponsible and half-baked, in many cases--but they want to address these issues because they want America to be a better place. As do I. As do all liberals.
This is one area where the right should just let the left shed the baggage of the 60's- and 70's-era left. Now those folks were unpatriotic, outwardly, and there was talk about revolution among those people in that time and place. I'm willing to concede that. But that's not the whole story. The modern-day left is not the old "New Left." We don't give a damn about socialist ideology or anything like that. A lot of conservatives just refuse to take liberals at their word when they say they love America, and construe all manner of nefarious motives to even the most innocent of liberal ideas. That might work for the more addled senior citizens who still believe that the left consists of bra-burning, draft-dodging radicals (i.e. people living in the past) but the up-and-coming generation will not identify with that aggrievement that has been one of the GOP's biggest weapons for decades. They already have their work cut out for them with the next generation. To us, hippies are something we only saw in films, the radical left something of which most of us have no awareness. So, when Republicans say that the Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq because they want to see America humiliated, we just think they're insane. Which they are if they actually believe what they're saying. But there are still plenty of old people around, flags still burning in their minds. They won't, however, be around for long.
In essence, the whole point of patriotism is a love of one's country. Uncontroversial. And the main idea is that the love of one's country ought to prompt individuals to make sacrifices on behalf of one's country, to support her when she's right and criticize her when she's wrong, the latter being necessary on the occasions when the patria veers off course (as does happen). I get the sense that, deep down, we all agree about this. Why not just trust each other?
This is one area where the right should just let the left shed the baggage of the 60's- and 70's-era left. Now those folks were unpatriotic, outwardly, and there was talk about revolution among those people in that time and place. I'm willing to concede that. But that's not the whole story. The modern-day left is not the old "New Left." We don't give a damn about socialist ideology or anything like that. A lot of conservatives just refuse to take liberals at their word when they say they love America, and construe all manner of nefarious motives to even the most innocent of liberal ideas. That might work for the more addled senior citizens who still believe that the left consists of bra-burning, draft-dodging radicals (i.e. people living in the past) but the up-and-coming generation will not identify with that aggrievement that has been one of the GOP's biggest weapons for decades. They already have their work cut out for them with the next generation. To us, hippies are something we only saw in films, the radical left something of which most of us have no awareness. So, when Republicans say that the Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq because they want to see America humiliated, we just think they're insane. Which they are if they actually believe what they're saying. But there are still plenty of old people around, flags still burning in their minds. They won't, however, be around for long.
In essence, the whole point of patriotism is a love of one's country. Uncontroversial. And the main idea is that the love of one's country ought to prompt individuals to make sacrifices on behalf of one's country, to support her when she's right and criticize her when she's wrong, the latter being necessary on the occasions when the patria veers off course (as does happen). I get the sense that, deep down, we all agree about this. Why not just trust each other?
McCain's 100 Years comment
It's actually very easy to explain. McCain wants troops to stay in Iraq, regardless of whether there's violence or not or whether they're needed or not, because he wants to continue his policy of rogue-state rollback. He wants America to have more power and leverage in the region, he wants us to be a player over there, perhaps because of oil and terrorism but certainly because of his Hemingway-imbibed love of war and empire. That's why his reasons for why he wants troops in Iraq forever aren't compelling--there really isn't a reason, he just wants 'em there, and he's trying to find a politic way of rationalizing it. He'd better come up with one pretty damn soon, and it had better be damn good. It's not like McCain's got a lot of slack to work with on the Iraq question.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
A sign that Clinton knows it's over
Mrs. Clinton made the comments in an interview on ABC last week. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran...” (emphasis mine)Not "when I'm president," which she's said many, many times. She knows it's over, deep down. (From Ambinder.)
Wow (Parte Deux)
That old canard about Republicans not having a sense of humor does not appear to be in any danger of becoming extinct...
Why I'm Supporting Obama
I often wonder if we in the Democratic Party understand the big picture. There is, after all, a war of ideas going on between the GOP and the Democrats, between the right and left, and it's a battle that I (and many others) want to win. And there are Democratic leaders, like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama, who seem to be interested in winning. And then there's Hillary Clinton, who seems not to want to win so much as keep the war going. Why is this? Is it because she is a closet conservative? Perhaps, but I suspect that ideology moves her less than power. Does she want to keep the culture wars, such as they are, going because she is evil? No, not unless you define evil as doing what is in your best interest, everyone else be damned, which actually might not be a bad definition.
No, the real reason why Clinton is enamored with refighting the same goddamned boomer battles is because if they went away it would be easy enough to see that she's not much of a liberal, not much of a Democrat, and really not much of a leader. When she's being attacked by Fox News, she can pretend to be a liberal since the right-wing conspiracy attacks her. She has the right enemies, which does matter a lot in politics. Unfortunately, this impression is belied every time Terry McAuliffe or Ed Rendell or some other jackass waxes rhapsodic about Fox's "even-handed" coverage of the nominating process. There's an alliance there, an alliance that can also be seen when Clinton's press release in the aftermath of "bittergate" was cosmetically identical to that of John McCain's. She's still playing by the Reagan-era rules of the game, where assertive liberalism just can't win. Even though she is promoting a liberal agenda, her instincts are anything but liberal. And this worries me.
Ultimately, I'm not interested in just winning one election. Well, I am, but I think there's more at stake here. We in the Democratic Party have the opportunity to nominate someone who is not only able but willing to forcefully articulate an alternative to the GOP line on war and security. These areas have typically been strengths for the Republicans, at least since Nixon. Now, with the failure of the Bush Administration, these issues are up for grabs, and I want them to become Democratic strengths. I want the Democrats to own them. With no domestic policy to speak of, and without security to fall back upon, the GOP will be back to the drawing board for a decade at least. Barack Obama is poised not just to be an historic candidate, but also to break the back of the conservative movement once and for all. No wonder they're scared to death of him, literally.
Clinton, for all her strengths on domestic policy, has never really given me reason to believe that she really cares about foreign policy. Her campaign is reminiscent of nothing more than John Kerry's, which basically was premised on "taking the war off the table." Clinton now opposes the war, but she's hewed extremely close to the line of public opinion every step of the way, and she rarely talks about the war these days, preferring instead to focus on domestic policy. Ultimately, though, I just don't think her heart is in leading a revolt against the neocon worldview, and I don't think she wants to fundamentally remake the landscape of the American political scene. She doesn't want to end the polarization--that's how she got where she is, and she's even doing it in microcosm in the Dem nominating contest. Quod erat demonstrandum.
All I know is that the gods have presented us with a singular opportunity in this election cycle, and Barack Obama might just be able to end this war by winning it. Maybe the task isn't possible, but it is too compelling an idea for me to not support Obama.
No, the real reason why Clinton is enamored with refighting the same goddamned boomer battles is because if they went away it would be easy enough to see that she's not much of a liberal, not much of a Democrat, and really not much of a leader. When she's being attacked by Fox News, she can pretend to be a liberal since the right-wing conspiracy attacks her. She has the right enemies, which does matter a lot in politics. Unfortunately, this impression is belied every time Terry McAuliffe or Ed Rendell or some other jackass waxes rhapsodic about Fox's "even-handed" coverage of the nominating process. There's an alliance there, an alliance that can also be seen when Clinton's press release in the aftermath of "bittergate" was cosmetically identical to that of John McCain's. She's still playing by the Reagan-era rules of the game, where assertive liberalism just can't win. Even though she is promoting a liberal agenda, her instincts are anything but liberal. And this worries me.
Ultimately, I'm not interested in just winning one election. Well, I am, but I think there's more at stake here. We in the Democratic Party have the opportunity to nominate someone who is not only able but willing to forcefully articulate an alternative to the GOP line on war and security. These areas have typically been strengths for the Republicans, at least since Nixon. Now, with the failure of the Bush Administration, these issues are up for grabs, and I want them to become Democratic strengths. I want the Democrats to own them. With no domestic policy to speak of, and without security to fall back upon, the GOP will be back to the drawing board for a decade at least. Barack Obama is poised not just to be an historic candidate, but also to break the back of the conservative movement once and for all. No wonder they're scared to death of him, literally.
Clinton, for all her strengths on domestic policy, has never really given me reason to believe that she really cares about foreign policy. Her campaign is reminiscent of nothing more than John Kerry's, which basically was premised on "taking the war off the table." Clinton now opposes the war, but she's hewed extremely close to the line of public opinion every step of the way, and she rarely talks about the war these days, preferring instead to focus on domestic policy. Ultimately, though, I just don't think her heart is in leading a revolt against the neocon worldview, and I don't think she wants to fundamentally remake the landscape of the American political scene. She doesn't want to end the polarization--that's how she got where she is, and she's even doing it in microcosm in the Dem nominating contest. Quod erat demonstrandum.
All I know is that the gods have presented us with a singular opportunity in this election cycle, and Barack Obama might just be able to end this war by winning it. Maybe the task isn't possible, but it is too compelling an idea for me to not support Obama.
Wow
Maybe this "principled gas tax opposition thing" might just work out (via TNR):
Meanwhile, Obama once again stated his opposition to such a holiday while also campaigning in Indiana. "This isn’t a real solution. This is a gimmick," he said. "And this is what Washington does whenever there’s a big problem. They pretend that they’re solving it to try to get though a political season but they don’t really solve it. And unfortunately, after John McCain made the proposal, I guess Sen. Clinton thought it was gonna poll well, so she said, 'Me too, I’ll do the same thing.’ and so now it’s the McCain-Clinton proposal to suspend the gas tax.
He then said, "You know people are more concerned about looking good for the cameras and for politics than they are at actually solving problems. You remember when George Bush five years ago put up a big sign in front of an aircraft carrier saying ‘Mission accomplished’ in Iraq. I’m sure they thought that was good politics. Except five years later we’re still in this war in Iraq."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)