Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBy Courting the Republicans, Obama Could Get the Worst of All Worlds
Consensus among the nation's political elite is a recipe for disaster - just look at Iraq, the war on terror and deregulation
Pity the Republicans. Defeated in the presidential election, depleted in Congress and departing from the White House in disgrace, they are a shell of their previously bullish selves. As much of the country, and indeed the world, celebrated the inauguration two weeks ago, they looked askance. It was unclear how many of them realised that one of the reasons this particular ceremonial theatre was so popular was because they were leaving the stage.
This weekend they held a conference in Washington entitled "Republican for a Reason", where it rapidly became evident that nobody was entirely clear what that reason was. Having set out as social conservatives, they ended up as conservative socialists - big spenders who made the first moves towards nationalising the banks.
The party elected Michael Steele as its national chairman. Promising outreach and renewal, Steele - the party's first African-American leader - claimed Republicans have an "image" problem. That's true. According to a recent Pew survey, the Democrats are enjoying the greatest favourability advantage it has ever recorded. Republicans trail in every demographic group apart from white evangelicals.
The problem with the party's image is that it is a faithful reflection of its policies and culture. Steele, who once compared stem-cell research to concentration camp experiments, was the moderate in the election. He defeated the South Carolina chairman, Katon Dawson, who became politically active in protest at racial integration of schools and was a member of an all-white country club for 12 years before leaving last year. It was a close run thing. Steele won 91-77 on the sixth and final ballot.
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, almost half of Republicans think their problem is not that they have been too rightwing, but too moderate. More than half think the Alaska governor and defeated vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin offers the best model for their party. To the extent that they have learned any lessons from their defeat, they seem to be the wrong ones.
One of the few people prepared to give Republicans the time of day at the moment is President Barack Obama. For the past two weeks, Obama has been desperately trying to persuade them to support his economic stimulus package. After several trips to Congress for negotiations he called on Democrats to strip some elements from the bill that Republicans objected to. He also added more of the tax cuts they wanted.
Why he would go to such extraordinary lengths is baffling. He's well aware of who's in charge. During one of his first meetings, he responded to one criticism from the Republican whip by saying: "We just have a difference here, and I'm president. So I'm going to prevail on that." And people are far more keen on him prevailing than them. According to Research 2000, Obama has an approval rating of 75%. Meanwhile, fewer people have even heard of the Republican minority leader of the Senate (Mitch McConnell) or the House (John Boehner) than approve of the job they are doing.
Nonetheless, despite being courted and indulged, when the stimulus plan came to the floor not a single House Republican voted for it. Later that evening Obama invited some of those Republicans over for cocktails and started the wooing all over again.
Alongside invoking God, patriotism and the spirit of the founding fathers, every presidential candidate pledges to reach across the aisle, dampen partisan rancour and put the interests of the voters first. But this was particularly true for Obama, who pledged a different, more consensual, approach to politics in Washington.
Bringing more civil and constructive engagement to politics is, as a means to an end, a perfectly laudable goal - particularly after eight years of crude majoritarianism. Democracies are not elected dictatorships. They should be places of discussion and debate, compromise and consensus.
But while it makes sense as a process, as a principle bipartisanship is worthless, since it depends entirely on who you are engaging with and to what purpose. The war in Iraq, the war on terror and the deregulation of the economy were all bipartisan efforts. All have been disastrous.
Many Democrats went along with these things not because they thought they were good for the country, but because they believed that not to do so would be detrimental to their party.
Indeed, far from elevating the interests of the country above the party, bipartisanship mostly achieves the opposite - suggesting that the principal aim of policymaking is consensus among the political elite rather than delivering for the electorate. The fact that the political class comes together in a cordial manner to support something does not in itself make that thing good.
The problem that has plagued Washington over the last few years is not "partisanship" that supports one idea or another, but a more sectarian "partysanship" that supports the interests of one party over an idea. The problem with George Bush was not that he did not listen to anybody else's ideas, it was that his ideas were terrible.
Viewed in this light, the Republican response to Obama's overtures makes a grim kind of sense. Given the ballooning budget deficit and failure of tax cuts under their watch, the Republicans have no ideological integrity. So in the absence of a clear alternative or coherent leadership, they have decided to distance themselves from the entire project. They have calculated that if the stimulus package works, Obama will get the credit anyway. And if it doesn't, they don't want to be associated with it. It's not constructive - but it is at least politically cogent.
It is the overtures themselves that are bewildering. The burning priority for Americans at this juncture is not that their two main parties work together. It's that their government does something to revive the economy. The concessions Obama has made to the Republicans have actually made that outcome less likely. Virtually every reputable economist agrees that the most effective way of pumping money into the economy quickly, in order to create jobs, is through public spending. Individual tax cuts are more likely to be saved, and business tax cuts take a long time to take effect.
As the economic stimulus bill goes to the Senate for negotiation, there is a real possibility that Obama may end up with the worst of all worlds: an inadequate stimulus package that has been watered down by the Republicans; a huge budget deficit; and still no support from the Republicans.
What the Republicans fear is precisely what many Democrats hope for: paradigm-shifting legislation that rolls back some of the excesses of the last generation by returning government to the centre of American public life, creating jobs and uplifting the poor, while extending healthcare and educational opportunities to working-class families.
"Never let a crisis go to waste," said Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. This economic crisis has given the president the opportunity to do for the poor what 9/11 gave Bush the chance to do for the oil companies. When capital is in such short supply, he shouldn't squander it on a sub-prime party.
69 Comments so far
Show AllIt's verty useful to the ruling class in America that Barack Obama is president. Were John McCain or some other Republican to come to the American people and tell them that the "recovery" will (as usual) be on the backs of the masses, the social unrest that exists now may spin out of control.
Obama the ruling class hopes, can control any unrest that might occur given the democratic will of the people.
Barack Obama did not spring from obscurity to change anything fundamental. He sprang from obscurity because he was financed by Corporate America, garnering more corporate money that George Bush in 2000 and 2004 and John McCain in 2008.
He supports four wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a possible war in Iran); he wants to cut Medicare and Social Security, and he's all for bailing out the thieves and incompetents on Wall Street. ... While the average worker gets NOTHING!
He spoke in his Inaugural Address about individuals being responsible. But he's failed to hold responsbile those who got us into this financial meltdown. Instead he's given them cabinet posts in his Administration!
He speaks of personal responsbility, but he's unwilling to hold Bush and Company legally responsible for the war crims they've committed. War crimes he himself is continuing in his ongoing support for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Nothing will change unless and until a viable third party movement takes hold in the United States. Third parties are strong and common in several other advanced industrial countries, all it takes is the will to create them here in the United States.
If you say the chances are slim, then you're saying that the species' chances of survival are slim.
"Nothing will change unless and until a viable third party movement takes hold in the United States. Third parties are strong and common in several other advanced industrial countries, all it takes is the will to create them here in the United States."
Thank you for this statement, which should be trumpeted from the rooftops. Except for those who seek violent revolution as the solution to our problems, or those who continue to hold an unjustified faith in the corrupt two party system, I would hope that the rest are beginning to understand the need for third party politics.
Daschle makes over five million dollars by becoming a lobbyist for the health care industry, then Obama tries to appoint him to a position overseeing that industry. Thank goodness that Daschle was a tax cheat,huh? Now our President must find another shill to rob us blind.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
"Except for those who seek violent revolution as the solution to our problems, or those who continue to hold an unjustified faith in the corrupt two party system"
I think only a fool would believe in either.
If this Pork Pie bill is passed, I will begin to believe that a viable Third party could be possible. There are anumber of populists present in both parties that could ground it.
I presonally am waiting to see if its indeed business as usual on the Hill and if Obama will sign off on this disgrace (unless all the pork is removed and actual job related spending is added).
StephenB
I wholly agree with Younge. Obama is badly compromising his stature as one who was elected to bring change, i.e. reform to Washington. The electorate gave Obama and the Democratic Party a strong majority vote. They have shown in a great many ways their utter disgust with Bush policies. What Obama doesn't seem to get is that the Republican Party today is not composed of reasonable people but ideological extremists. They do not and will not cooperate with or compromise with Democrats. Obama needs to stop all the sweetness and light talk and start to play hard ball. That is what the Republicans did for eight years. If he needs some Republican support for legislation he can peel off a few moderates, the only ones he has a prayer of getting support from anyway. He also needs to appoint more red blooded Democrats, not centrists and Republicans (the Greg appointment to Commerce will do nothing for him, the Democrats, or the country). Instead of the tax challenged Daschle, he should appoint Howard Dean, M.D. to HHS. As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean was the main person responsible for putting Democrats back in power. How does Obama reward him? By completely ignoring him. Courting and appointing Republicans is a losing proposition. Republicans will only sabotage and water down legislation rendering it ineffective. They are already doing that with the stimulus, adding in costly, useless corporate tax cuts.
The Democratic Party is nothing more than the moderate branch of the GOP. You're being naive to think otherwise.
It seems wrong to me that so many fasten upon the GOP as the "root of all evil". These two parties have been in and out of power for decades in a cyclic manner . The Democrats had a rather longish run in Congress in fact, yet the underlying flaws and the creeping rot that infests our democracy has grown regardless of which party was in charge.
To bicker about how "bad" is the GOP while extolling the virtues of the Democrats is simply to avoid the real problem, our system is rancid with corruption and is ruled by the money of the corporations. Unless and until we deal with that it matters very little which party is in the majority or who occupies the White House.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
By God, when a reasonable post shows up here these days it almost staggers the imagination.
"our system is rancid with corruption and is ruled by the money of the corporations. Unless and until we deal with that it matters very little which party is in the majority or who occupies the White House."
Thats the truth. And there is nothing anti-American about the truth.
Yup.
Its time to shine the flood lights on the mainstream media and cockroach infested Republican party. Their actions over the last 8 years including what they did in trying to connect Iraq with 911, a total like that took us into the war that was and still is one of the biggest drains on our budget and national stature. Its time to take the fat little turd carl Rove and put him on the stand and make him testify or put his fat butt in jail. They will love him to the extent he can handle there. How about the enabeling supreme court. They are a travesty to justice. I think we still have a lot of work to do to correct this horrible hole we have been put in by the GOP, which stands for Greedy Old Pigs. They have lost their power, and its time to retire the Party of Greed and Lies forever. A new progressive party should be founded to pave the way for a future where every American can be proud of their country.
On another blog, a commenter pointed out a key to why Obama's unable to get anything done in a "bipartisan manner".
Recall that his strongest background is that of a community organizer. He hasn't really been a leader in a position of power to any great extent. He is accustomed to organizing the powerless to approach those in power to insist the powerful take the interests of the powerless into account. THAT is apparently the historical framework of his political awareness.
He seems to be totally at sea now that he's crossed the line into the realm of power and influence. He's BECOME the powerful and yet continues to approach governing as though he and those he's representing are still powerless and must seek permission and the regard of those more powerful than he, when in fact he is the one with the power, not them.
He may have said to the Republicans, "We won," but unless he uses his moral integrity and now considerable political strength to do what's best for America, his winning doesn't really mean much to those of us who supported him and knew that the next president MUST undo the Bush years. Instead, Obama appears to want to continue them, just not as flamboyantly, and with a slightly different focus, primarily on domestic issues, not foreign policy or constitutional matters.
I think this is why he's burdening his administration with those who have already coopted his original agenda and is cooperating with a Democratic Congress out to protect their own skins. Unless he recognizes the political power inherent in the position of the presidency, he will fail miserably, and he'll bring America down with him. We are already at the brink of the fall, economically and constitutionally.
Anyway, will Obama ever make the leap from being the representative of the powerless to being the one with power himself? And if he does, by some miracle, will it be in time? Can he even be a good president with the old Washington guard surrounding and advising him, coopting him, or will he cede his political power to them?
I know what I think....
"On another blog, a commenter pointed out a key to why Obama's unable to get anything done in a bipartisan manner".
Gee and I thought his lack of leadership was because he is really just a House Negro.
MALCOLM X: THE HOUSE NEGRO AND THE FIELD NEGRO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
Spare me the "your a racist" until after you view the wise words of Malcolm X. He was talking about power and those who serve power.
More information that it's still the same old Clinton administration passing the the bush torch. This link says it all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090129/pl_usnw/dennis_ross_chairmanship_of_israeli_government_funded_th...
Stop being so full of fear, everybody. The party of George W. Bush and his dad were about dividing this country, and the party membership went along, not knowing what the real goal was. We can see the rotten fruit that the Bushes planted and tended: War, poverty, injustice.
What Obama is doing, inviting the Republicans to have a hand in righting the wrongs that have been done, is the moral and ethical thing to do when you are the President of this entire country, and you are steering it back on track. Now the Republicans who were so naive to follow the Bush Doctrine, because they didn't know what it consisted of, are in need of a good President, too. So many of us, regardless of party affilitation, have lost our way and think there is only one way to be, when you have won an election, and that is winner take all. But here we have a fine leader who says get on board, don't need no ticket. Well, it's hard to be kind when we are thirsting for the truth, but there is a place where truth and kindess do meet and Obama is taking us there. Get on board, together we'll make it.
I'm sorry, but anyone who blithely thinks the Republicans and Obama's courtship of them is "a good thing" is living in la-la land.
You don't make alliances with or "cooperate" with those who have supported and enabled a criminal government, whether they wear a Democratic or Republican hat. You don't try to get thieves, torturers, murderers, and liars to cooperate in their own demise. That is naive beyond belief.
Apparently Kool-Aid drinkers aren't all Republicans.
Sierra: I, myself, am not full of fear. I'm very comfortable with my thoughts concerning reality. Although living under the auspices of the American Empire (formally known as The United States of America) is indeed a bit distressing.
You seem very comfortable as well. The book and the movie (1984) would certainly do you justice. You are "on board." But the part about "together we'll make it" is puzzling. Do you mean - "together we'll make it" as sheeple supporting B.O. and the dreams of the American Empire? I have an inkling that this is what you believe.
"The party of George W. Bush and his dad were about dividing this country" is certainly true. However, being one of the Delusionaries, you conveniently forget about Bill Clinton. Handsome Bill and Handsome Barack have the same agenda as their buddies - the Bushes.
Please wake up and deal with it!
My father, a lifelong Democrat said to me today, "I didn't vote for Obama just so he could suck up to the Republicans."
When you see bipartisan support, it usually means that once again, the Democrats are selling out the public. If Obama were doing right by the people, he'd have no friends in the Republican party.
You tell your father I'm with him!
Obama fills the stereotype of a "good man" who refuses or is unable to wield power in service to constitutional integrity but instead has some romantic belief that people will come around to your viewpoint if you include them in your circle of influence.
What he doesn't seem to know is that you don't bring them in if they don't share your agenda. You can keep the door open to those who do, but you don't unilaterally bring in those who can destroy you, and WILL at the first opportunity.
I think almost all of Obama's cabinet choices will coopt (or already have coopted) his agenda, and he'll end up someplace he never intended to go. So will we.
I am astonished that so few people in the Obama administration or on Capitol Hill on in the MSM seem to see what is obviously going on here. The key point is in Younge's next-to-last paragraph. The last thing Republicans want is a bill that succeeds in making things better for average Americans. That would cement the idea that the Republicans wrecked the economy and the Democrats fixed it, which would spell electoral doom for the GOP for a very long while. The Repugs' natural constituency is the rich, and their bank accounts can take a serious hit and they will still be OK. A long and deep recession will be brutal on ordinary people, though, and that is just what the Repugs want. The only way they can get elected is by hypnotizing enough ignorant yokels with dark messages about immigrants, African-Americans, feminists, intellectuals, liberals, and homosexuals. At the moment, no one gives a damn about such crap, as people are focused laser-like on making ends meet and looking to the government to do something. But the Republican hate and venom will look attractive again after a year or two of dire economic distress and ineffective government measures, at which point people will be losing hope and looking for scapegoats. Extreme right-wing ideologies have always thrived in times of severe economic turmoil, as the world learned to its peril in the last century. The filthy bastards that call themselves Republican know that it is very much in their interest to do everything they can to ensure that this depression is as deep and as long as possible. In a just world they would all be put up against a wall and shot.
I think Obama's dream of a "post-partisan" government is really naive. It completely IGNORES the crimes of the prior administration and aims to incorporate those who supported and enabled those crimes to influence the presidency.
Furthermore, even on paper, that works only if everybody agrees that they'll solve problems in a non-partisan manner. When your power is achieved through fraud and deceit, there's no way you'll suddenly become "cooperative" and honorable when your party loses an election.
Sioux Rose
ANNEY: Your points about transitioning from community organizer to THE leader are interesting; but they gloss over the larger possibility that any who get that high up have already proven that they are beholden to the old elites, the interests that run the political machine and its banking cousin. I still think the president is to leading the nation what the newscaster is to news: think: pretty face, selling packaging!
SR
If Obama had been in national politics for a longer period of time, I think I'd agree with you 100%. (I may have to agree with you anyway, who knows?) Maybe his entire political career, starting in Chicago, has been one of cooperating with and not challenging the powers-that-be, despite his assumed confrontation with power in his community organization days. I haven't seen a detailed analysis except for a few of his public Chicago relationships, but they don't necessarily include the underbelly of politics, thinking of the Bilderberg group, Carlyle, etc.
At any rate, he's failing at what needs to be done to keep America a sound and honorable democracy, whatever the reason.
"The president is to leading the nation as the newscaster is to reading the news..." That's quotable!
Sioux
Gracias. I think the higher/philosophical self has to stand back from this human comedy of errors and observe it AS IF one were an alien checking out this incredibly strange planet. Don't you think aliens would take McDonalds and their golden arches for places of worship, filled with blood sacrifices? (That ought to turn off the meat eaters on this thread.)
The Mall of America is our biggest megachurch.
And you said you were an atheist! (lol)
Obama has already installed Republicans at Defense and Transportation, and named a representative of the healthcare industry for HHS. Now he's all set to put Judd Gregg - a hardcore conservative and free trader - at Commerce. No doubt the Democratic governor of NH will name another Republican to fill Gregg's seat. I hope once that happens - and it undoubtedly will - that people will finally realize that all the *bipartisanship* talk is a scam, and that Obama and the Democrats are really partisan Republicans with a Democratic label.
From Gary Younge: "Democracies are not elected dictatorships. They should be places of discussion and debate, compromise and consensus." Is Mr. Younge talking about the former U.S. of A.? Dear Gary, we are now living in the American Empire where our "Democracy" is a selected dictatorship. The New World Order is upon us.
A person with whom I vehemently disagree with on many issues is Libertarian Conservative Chuck Baldwin. However, we are in agreement about the disgusting USAPATRIOT Act and the realities of the New World Order. This, to me, expresses the principle of bipartisanship.
Chuck says "It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion."
"Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer."
Maybe we are both "conspiracy nuts" and then again, maybe not.
Check out Baldwin's recent article and decide for yourself http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin487.htm
Sioux Rose
MAGARULIAN: Whatever appears as a straight line in and across space generally arcs to form a circle. That brings me to Martin Luther King's mention that history and human collective activity meet many reversals, but eventually reparations are made, and events arc towards justice.
I preface my comment with those analogies because wouldn't it be something if both sides of the proverbial spectrum, the extreme right (say, Baldwin's group) and the extreme left, progressives all the way, TEAM UP to take down what is very much everything you stated, morphed with a not-so fictitious version of Darth Vader's Death Star. It's going to take a different kind of "coalition of the willing" to disempower the covert state that mammon/Mars have enacted.
Yes, Sioux Rose, we need to join forces on the issues we have in common. From my past experience in organizing a Bill of Rights Defense Committee in my community back in 2002, I could see that various, ordinarily conflicting organizations and political parties could come together to oppose the USAPATRIOT Act and Bush's Executive Orders. The groups that aligned together to demand that the mayors and city council persons in their towns approve a resolution against the neocon agenda was very impressive.
The ACLU, The Green Party, The Libertarian Party, The Constitution Party, other parties and organizations, librarians of all stripes and colors, and people like Phyllis Schlafly came together to voice their anger that this travesty could be approved by "our representatives" in congress.
What is especially revealing is that BEFORE 9/11, many doctrines were being put into place by Bill Clinton. See a couple of articles by Phyllis Schlafly in 1998:
Liberty vs. Totalitarianism, Clinton-Style: Monitoring by I.D. and Database
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/july98/psrjuly98.html
Big Brother Is Monitoring Us by Databases
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/sept98/psrsept98.html
And read the Joint Vision 2020 put together in June of 2000. Here's a section from it:
"The overarching focus of this vision is full spectrum dominance -- achieved through the interdependent application of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full dimensional protection. Attaining that goal requires the steady infusion of new technology and modernization and replacement of equipment. However, material superiority alone is not sufficient. Of greater importance is the development of doctrine, organizations, training and education, leaders, and people that effectively take advantage of the technology."
We now need to go further. Many of us can see the reality of the DC dems and repubs. They are playing a game - toying with us. They have their agenda and we the people need to have ours. We all agree on many of the most important issues. The powers-that-be are playing the same old game of 'divide and conquer'. While such things as gay marriage and immigration issues are important, they really pale in comparison to Obama's trillion $ bailout to inept crooks, his continuing of the bogus war on terror, war on drugs and his approval of privacy intrusions.
B.O.'s appointment choices and advisors explain much of what Chuck Baldwin and I have been trying to get across. We are not living in America. We are living within the American Empire. The New World Order is here. Now.
Magarulian
What distresses me is that all that energy did not accomplish a single change in the Bush-Republican administration's agenda, nor apparently in the Democrats' agenda since they supported Bush.
It's great for people to come together and voice their concerns in one loud voice, but what's next if nobody cares? If no change is forthcoming?
anney, what's next is people coming together, reading and understanding the words of The Declaration of Independence.
We need more town hall meetings. Space is usually available, for example, in a community's library. We need community volunteers - willing to make the time to organize these meetings. We need to discuss the realities of life in the Empire - i.e., it's plain to see where all of this bailout money is going. People are finally beginning to see the light (and I don't mean the JC kind).
We have every right, under The Declaration of Independence, to abolish this corrupt government. We can't continue to live in our fantasy worlds any longer. Our numbers are still small, but as the economy worsens, we the people will come to the realization that something radical needs to take place.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Sioux Rose
MARGARULIAN: Points well raised and taken. It truly is the only viable strategy at this point, short of seeing a lot of left-wing investment in media, presuming that would even work! Fortunately alternate media are where the young meet, and likely where their gates of activism will emerge. And I mention media inasmuch as "necessity is the Mother of invention" and necessity shows that THIS is a "teachable moment." Time to bring seemingly opposed factions together to create a critical mass substantial enough to take down the walls of the old temple(s) that mammon (with much help from Mars) has built. As people realize that their lives really do depend upon this, lest we see America become a jungle, "Down These Mean Streets" (I knew the author, Piri Thomas) style, alternatives for going along become dire.
Only a non-American journalist could have written these true words:
"Many Democrats went along with (the war on Iraq, war on terror, and deregulation) not because they thought they were good for the country, but because they believed that not to do so would be detrimental to their party.
"Indeed, far from elevating the interests of the country above the party, bipartisanship mostly achieves the opposite - suggesting that the principal aim of policymaking is consensus among the political elite rather than delivering for the electorate. The fact that the political class comes together in a cordial manner to support something does not in itself make that thing good."
In the US, the voters choose whether to get stabbed in the chest by a Republican or in the back by a Democrat. The US media calls this "democracy".
I don't mind so much Obama getting Republicans for his cabinet, but I do mind the caliber of people he is choosing. I'd much prefer he had someone like Lincoln Chafee (a Republican) who voted against the war then people as poorly suited for reform as Daschle (a Democrat). So many terrible choices: Geithner, Gates, Clinton, Blair, Jones, and I'm sure many others I don't know about. If Obama wants to be bi-partisan, he should have a search committee go through the Republican ranks and find the best of the best. They would be better than the bottom 25% democrats he seems to be choosing now I'm guessing.
Since we are stuck with a two party system for a while I'm guessing, having Obama elevate the status of the better Republicans might not be a bad thing in the long run either.
Dara Parsavand
Simple question, you appear comfortable with Obama, but not his picks, what's wrong with Clinton? Yes, she voted for Iraq, but Obama and Clinton have nearly identical records on most other issues.
Sioux Rose
I am very fond of symbols. So when someone is named HYDE or DELAY or KASHKARI or MADOFF, or in this case STEELE (steal), I take notice.
When Hillary was selected to run for office, the Republicans found the darling Mrs. Palin. Now we have an attractive Black (bi-racial) president, and so the Repubs come up with their Black contender. There's a lot of market based mixing and matching going on.
As for reaching across the aisle: if my neighbor is a known criminal, I don't think I would seek consensus with his interests. Although the democrats with all too few notable exceptions, went along with every illegal policy the Republicans put into motion in recent years, continuing to seek agreement with this amoral, diabolical bunch is not much of a departure from my neighborly analogy.
A meteor could hit the earth and threaten to extinguish all species, and all the Republicans would say is "CUT TAXES!! CUT TAXES!!".
Of course they don't mean the disguised taxes like expensive health care and education, just the income and inheritance taxes for themselves.
Joe
"Of course they don't mean the disguised taxes like expensive health care and education,"
Yes, we must constantly tell people that those are REAL taxes. From webster.com, the last entry in the definition for tax:
to make onerous and rigorous demands on
Right you are, Sioux Rose,
The Republicans are not a political party, they are a mafia; specifically a protection racket for billionaire corporations. The corporations pay them off, with campaign cash and million dollar jobs, and then the Republicans "protect" them with low taxes, subsidies, war contracts, cheap labor, license to pollute, and the absence of any restraining regulations.
Like any mafia their business is theft, lies and murder. Just think of the 18,000 people who die every year for lack of health insurance, so that the insurance companies can rake in 30% of the nation's health care dollar. That's six times as many deaths as in the 9-11 attacks, EVERY YEAR. All so we can have "freedom of choice," over which tiny pool of doctors the insurance companies corral us into. And the Republicans have been blocking national health care since Truman.
The only difference between the Republicans and the other mafias is that the Republicans operate on a bigger scale and can therefore afford better public relations.
So why do Obama and the Democrats make deals with these criminals? Simple. Because MOST of the Democrats get money from the same corporations and make similar deals. No, the two parties are not identical. The Dems also get money from unions and from feminist and ecology and social groups. And there is a Democratic progressive caucus, whose policies are more different from mainstream Dems than the mainstreams of the two parties are from each other. (There are 2 parties, but they are NOT Republicans and Democrats.) So when the Dems make deals with the Repugs, they are making deals with the corporate elite, which controls the Repugs about 98%, and the Dems about 70%.
The only way to change this equation is to organize. When unions and social organizations begin to rival the corporatocracy in power, then and only then will Washington really begin to change. And Obama, instead of wagging his tongue about bankers bonuses, would write a tax bill to take their plunder back.
Sioux Rose
LAURENCE: I certainly agree with your astute assessment of where funds come from and what they produce in their wake; but I wish I was so optimistic about "organizing." Of course certain clout has emerged from large groups of persons loosely coalesced via the Internet; and I think all those who really DID put their time and energy to work for Obama, IF they are paying attention, are going to wake up from the dream of hope as it collapses and the reality they aspired towards makes today look just like yesterday in the rearview mirror. And when that disappointment reverberates like an earthquake across a substantial portion of the population, perhaps something akin to organization or activism will emerge. A lot of money went into giving "the people" a new face and this guy's bio is straight out of central casting. How sad that he seems to work for "the man."
I can only imagine the JUSTICE Chris Rock could do with THAT truth/concept!
"Never let a crisis go to waste," said Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel."
Spoken like a true Chicago Boy.
Will Obama snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Obama has had so far a mixed record so still too early to tell. Will see how it all goes by 2010.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Smile at the Repelicans and then destroy them to the extent that is politically possible.
I don't think Obama's that vicious.
What this is about is very simple.
Republican's aren't free-thinkers, they're sheep, they live to play follow-the-leader.
For the past eight years they've been following Bush the Madman whether they agreed with him or not. Because that's the only way for them to keep their jobs.
Obama is merely offering them an olive branch, an escape-hatch, a way out, a publicly acceptable for them to change their thinking. By doing this, we might be able to work with them, we might accomplish something. The alternative is to treat the Republicans like they treated the Democrats, which only leads to bickering and gridlock. As progressives, as Democrats, let's show them that we're better than that. Let's work together and move our country forward.
Listen. The charade of opposition that takes place between the two Corporate Parties is just that: a charade. When you set the electoral parameters for what is not only possible, but also permissible, by the two Corporate Parties, you wind up with one giant Corporate Party with two faces. No other faces are allowed nor is there any possibility whatsoever for them to be, or become visible. There will ALWAYS be bickering between the "two parties". That is the script, the preconceived dynamic that keeps things as they are. It is the bickering, and the stage show, that keeps the two Corporate Parties in power and the mainstream media in big bucks through achievement of higher mind-share. One reinforces the other. Through the stage show the people get herded into one camp or another with an emotional, cult-like, religious attachment to "my party". High school trains us well for this, my school, my team, etc. This prevents any other possibilities and maintains the status quo. The nation goes about thinking of being either Red or Blue, or even as Obama said, purple. Any other color or stripe can simply go to hell. And so goes the greatest "democracy" the world has ever seen. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! Booyah! Yeah, right?!
Unbelievable! This meme that "the two parties are the same" just won't stay dead. Regardless of the fact that in his first two weeks on the job Obama has already undone half of Bush's legacy (i.e ending the war in Iraq, committing to Afghanistan, ending torture, closing Guantanamo, closing secret prisons, promising to repeal "don't ask tell", etc...
"The nation goes about thinking of being either Red or Blue, or even as Obama said, purple. Any other color or stripe can simply go to hell"
Amazing! you distort Obama's most famous speech on unity and inclusiveness, and disingenuously act like it's a speech in favor of segregation.
Joe, please try harder to post fact not fairy tale. The war in Iraq rages still, the prisoners in Guantanemo are imprisoned still and will be for at least another year, despite the fact that most have been denied basic rights and some have been tortured. We do not know yet which are guilty and which are innocent after six or more years in prison!
"Committing to Afghanistan" is another military blunder on a par with Bush's "committing to Iraq". Obama has made some serious poor appointments, has continued a useless effort towards bipartisan governance which is going to blow up in his face and has continued the giveaway of our tax dollars to the very people who created this economic disaster we face.
Do you not understand that your posts belong in a Middle School context, offer no serious weight of intellect and embarrass you before the whole forum?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Adolph Hitler would have LOVED to have you in his fold, joehope - i.e., "you distort Obama's most famous speech on unity and inclusiveness."
Substitute the name Obama for Hitler and it's the same thing. Speeches? Forget about this FISA-supporting, AIPAC shill making speeches - and try to use some of what's up there inside your head. Hint: Actions speak louder than words.
You are being lied to, joehope. But here's a comforting thought: you are not alone.
You are one of many sheeple - brainwashed - and it's all very sad.
Hitler?!!!
Are you insane?
Less than a month on the job and you are comparing Obama to HITLER!
"Substitute the name Obama for Hitler and it's the same thing. "
Just think what would you have said if I quoted "I have a dream"...
"Hint: Actions speak louder than words."
Hint: read a newspaper - closing Guantanamo, shutting down all secret prisons, ending torture, withdrawing from Iraq, funding alternative energy etc...
Are these not actions?
joehope, I will seriously try not to respond to your comments - after this one.
I am not comparing Obama to Hitler. I am comparing your idolizing of Obama and his speeches with many of the Germans who thought Hitler was so grand. And it wasn't just the Germans. Hitler was even on the cover of TIME magazine!
So far, Obama is all talk. "Withdrawing from Iraq"? Have the Empire's troops withdrawn from Iraq, or is it just the smooth talk that you're listening to?
He's not ending US sponsored terror. He's keeping the CIA extraordinary rendition program, specifically intended to torture prisoners away from American soil, which is a war-crime.
Republicans aren't the only Kool-Aid drinkers.
Sioux Rose
BIN BAN: So true, and so expensive on SOOOO many levels! I do feel the conditioning for this A team/B team begins in junior high school as you said; and the near worship of sports in this nation keeps that dual mentality alive. Many truly can conceive of nothing other than the "either-or" equation.
I remember an allegory about beings that lived in a 2-dimensional world. Since they lacked the perspective of 3-D no one ever looked up, so everything appeared as an insurmountable wall. MANY Americans have been similarly conditioned, and the recent push to the bull shit about "no child left behind" is basically a criminal act, a THEFT of imagination along with crippling the natural capacity for critical thought in young, fresh minds.
I recently got a little Shitzu and he's adorable. But I do learn from this animal. He gets very bored being stuck at home and MUST have a drive or a bike ride or something each day. I realized that it is absolutely INNATE to all sentient creatures a desire to learn and to know more about their world. The way children are boxed into rooms, forced to sit still, pressured to read things which may or may not be of interest to them, expected to compete against one another, and on and on. As the poet Ferlinghetti put it, "I am awaiting the rebirth of WONDER."
Wonder, root of the imagination is an ember critical to the indwelling spirit. To put out that fire is to guide another life towards inevitable quiet desperation.
I must comment on such inspired/inspiring posting. There is a new mythology/paradigm emerging which is inexorable. Our relationships (religion) with the Others is a big part of this. Your dog friend is a good example. Always like a Ferlinghetti reference. It reminds me of Buffy Saint Marie's "God is Alive,Magic is Afoot". No need to wait for WONDER, walk in the forest.
Sioux Rose
AMORN: I am fortunate to have trees all around me... I chose to live in a rather remote place to be part of the preservation of these last sacred sanctuaries that are NOT much touched by mankind. Thank you for validating my vision... I know many of us truly LOVE this planet and CARE about all its creatures, human beings included; and it's like we're asked to pack up our sensitivity, place aside our consciences and submit to a politics of DESTRUCTION seen in every aspect of modern mankind's relationship to the natural world: from the split of atoms, to forcing genes into incompatible (fish with tomato) unions; from leaving entire nations awash in toxic chemicals to bomblets ready to go off at any time. This unconscionable laying to waste masked by a number of sexy mind-control style PR campaigns is an attack on life and the Creation. I wish more people understood that, and maybe what patriotism and lies about freedom cost the world would finally be done away with.
Don't forget to send a passle (thats Southern for a big bunch) of Democrats with them if they pass this Pork Pie of a bill.
Michael Steel is in fact, only the titular head of the RNC.
The de facto head of the Rethuglic Party is Blush Limpdick, who proclaimed his desire to have Obama fail. Witness the Rethugs falling all over themselves to kiss Limpdick's butt cyst, and follow his bloviating marching orders in lockstep unity, goose-stepping every inch of the way.
Country above party my ass!
Bac Ho, the image of fawning GOPsters lining up to kiss that cysty ass just made my day!
That is probably the essential point here. Republicans are being obstructionists because they don't want Obama to be successful. The mantra given to them from the spiritual leader Rush Limbaugh is "we hope you fail." That opens the way to a Republican being elected in 2012 and Republicans gaining back seats in congress in 2010. So they will try to derail the bail out legislation and everything else coming from the Democrats and Obama.
It would be best for Obama to maintain the offer of bipartisanship AND draw attention to the fact that the Republicans are being obstructionists at every opportunity. The bottom line is it is difficult for obstructionists to get re elected because they have no positive record of successful legislation themselves. If it is clarified to the public who is trying to get things done and offer bipartisanship versus who is voting as a party block as obstructionists, Republicans will most likely loose even more seats in congress.
And what I would really like to see to clearly mark a new Obama direction in government is a complete roll back of all the Bush abuses of power. Closing GITMO and withdrawal of our troops from Iraq is a good start. That means revising the Patriot Act, re establishing the need for warrants for wiretaps, specific measures to make white house stonewalling impossible, etc... One of my big issues is that the war powers act has been manipulated twice now by presidents, LBJ and Bush. The War Powers Act was added to the constitution as a short cut around the original procedure for going to war, a full congressional vote for a declaration of war. The last time that happened was in 1941 after Pearl Harbor. Let's eliminate the war powers process and the opportunity that it will ever be manipulated again.
If it gives Obama a second term, he's not gonna listen to us.
Steele, who once compared stem-cell research to concentration camp experiments,
*while I am not an anti-abortionist I do think there is some validity to the position of being disgusted by the use of human embryos or fetal brain tissue for medical research.
People get so caught up in the worship of science and the belief it will cure all ills that they put morality aside.
It can be called a form of cannibalism and the idea of reducing life to components isnt exactly a noble approach.
Organ transplants came about through very vicious and cruel experimentation, and the consequences of it has been that someone on a waiting list has to be wishing that some stranger dies so they can live. Some people are killed for their organs, and the best that scientists can do is torture more members of other species to try and find a disposable transplant species.
Its hard to say you are against war and victimization when you applaud it in medicine.
Scientists tend to be shameless and stupid--they are such narrow minded thinkers that they cant see beyond their microscope.
Itw as the Clinton administration who rushed headlong into approving GMOs.
While I am thoroughly disgusted by the Republicans' false concern for life(they only care about the unborn, care nothing about the living and most have contempt for anything non human), I dont think the Democrats' rush to embrace the latest scientific experiment is good either.
Not all progress is good.
Heroin seemed like a wonder for cough suppression in the 1890s, now it isnt viewed so favorably.
"Scientists tend to be shameless and stupid." That's a pretty shameless, stupid assertion. Thanks to Red Rick for schooling you below--he's far more patient than I.
I would urge you to research the matter more thoroughly. The stem cells in question certainly come from human embryos, in the narrowest sense of that term. Yet these same bundle of cells in a petri dish are destined for the garbage can once the woman has had a successful implantation. If you object to the use of such you are really supporting a form of waste.
Of course this is an issue subject to ones personal and religious beliefs but such beliefs are personal after all and should not be used to the detriment of the entire human population.
Here are some facts:
http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#2
2. Where do stem cells come from?
Embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst: the fertilized egg, called the zygote, divides and forms two cells; each of these cells divides again, and so on. Soon there is a hollow ball of about 150 cells called the blastocyst that contains two types of cells, the trophoblast and the inner cell mass. Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inner cell mass.
Stem cells can also be found in small numbers in various tissues in the fetal and adult body. For example, blood stem cells are found in the bone marrow that give rise to all specialized blood cell types. Such tissue-specific stem cells have not yet been identified in all vital organs, and in some tissues like the brain, although stem cells exist, they are not very active, and thus do not readily respond to cell injury or damage.
Stem cells can also be obtained from other sources, for example, the umbilical cord of a newborn baby is a source of blood stem cells. Recently, scientists have also discovered the existence of cells in baby teeth and in amniotic fluid that may also have the potential to form multiple cell types. Research on these cells is at a very early stage.
Recently, cells with properties similar to embryonic stem cells, referred to as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) have been engineered from somatic cells (see ‘What is are induced pluripotent stem cells?’).
4. What is an embryonic stem cell?
Embryonic stem cells are those grown from the cells that make up the inner cell mass of the blastocyst. Embryonic stem cells have been derived from a variety of animals, including human, and are described as ‘pluripotent’- that is, they are capable of generating any and all cells in the body under the right conditions.
Embryonic stem cell lines can be grown indefinitely in vitro if the correct conditions are met. Importantly, these cells continue to retain their ability to form different, specialized cell types once they are removed from the conditions that keep them in an undifferentiated, or unspecialized, state.
The most widely studied are mouse embryonic stem cells. Mouse embryonic stem cells have taught us a lot about how pluripotent cells grow and specialize, and how embryonic development works. Indeed, mouse embryonic stem cells are a critical research tool for studying the function of individual genes and modeling human diseases. Mouse embryonic stem cells can be manipulated to contain specific genetic changes then used to generate mice which contain this change. Capecchi, Evans and Smithies were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2007 for developing this process. Read more.
Human embryonic stem cells were isolated relatively recently, in 1998. They are more difficult to work with than their mouse counterparts and currently less is known about them. However, scientists are making remarkable progress, learning about human developmental processes, modeling disease and establishing strategies that could ultimately lead to therapies to replace or restore damaged tissues using these human cells.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
For a people that grinds up its dead livestock and feeds it to the live livestock, how is using fetal matter for our own needs any different?
Has anybody asked why the Democrats are not jailing the Republican top leadership for the crimes that they have committed? It could be because the Democrats were there companions?
Yeah, the vote hustlers do invoke God's name, Patriotism, Spirit of your Nation's Founding Fathers...yeah yeah yeah..see the stage show lots & lots of times...
Since Jesus said his Kingdom is not of the world of man, this world, I do wonder what any worldly Nation, worldly Kingdom actually has to do with God?
But the vote hustlers know if they invoke God's name with things then they can hustle the votes from the voters.
Yesterday's Bush said God told him to go into the Middle East, but even before the historical Catholic Church set up the Religious Church/State that began murdering, torturing, and stealing in Jesus's name instead of Caesar's God had already stated they will be killing thinking they are doing him a favor.
So when Yesterday's Bush said God told him to go the Middle East was it God, just another political hustle...since God stated they will be killing thinking they are doing him a favor...or was it devil?
In God stating they will be killing thinking they are doing him a favor this is not necessarily limited to any one Religion, Peoples, or Nation's of Peoples.
Not my job to judge Yesterday's Bush, just my job not to be deceived by worldly men who invoke the name of God along with what in reality is nothing more than their own evil worldly ambitions upon the earth.
"God" has always been the elites' "right hand man".
Though, you would conclude they were at the top of their game based on how much face time they get. Doesn't matter if there is only 3 left in the entire country, if those are the only voices heard.
Obama's unity theme is naive, if not stupid. He wasn't elected to pacify the Right--who has been totally discredited and whose policies have been proven to be a staggering failure on every front. When the Republicans were in power, they accused Democrats of playing partisan politics when they didn't unite with the Republicans. When the Democrats have the majority, the Republicans accuse the Democrats of being partisan when they don't unite with the bankrupt Republicans, but since the Democrats ultimately bow to the same master, they can't really mount much of an opposition.
"Obama's unity theme is naive, if not stupid."
Why? He can just shrug his shoulders any day now and say, "Well, I tried." Then go and do his thing.
Here in the UK, we don't have many illusions about bipartisanship. Indeed, if our two big parties agree on something, we tend to get mightily suspicious. If the crowd we elected last time screw up, we like to look for alternative policies rather than pin our hopes on some show of unity in crisis.
Last time we had a bipartisan government was in World War II. It worked well, but when it was time to go to the polls in 1945, we remembered who had got us into the mess in the first place and, despite his heroic leadership, voted Churchill out and his Labour deputy, Clement Attlee, in.
Oh, yeah. One of Attlee's major achievements was a universal single-payer health insurance scheme. I hope President Obama imitates this jewel of Attlee's legacy.
That is right the Repugs go to the back of the bus, no in fact don't let them on the bus!