* You are viewing Posts Tagged ‘Politics’
Of all the stupid things our government has done, this has got to be close to the top of the list:
After seeing this story, I finally got angry enough to write my congressman for the first time. They pushed my off the edge of indifference. They have unleashed my wrath in the form of a polite letter to an authority figure. God help them.
I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to say the Steelers got lucky, but they did get the majority of the calls, including a “we’re not going to review this” call from the refs on the last play of the game. Sure, the Cards would have had no choice but to throw a hail mary, but who would you rather have trying to bring that down than Larry Fitzgerald. Oh well, it was a great game nonetheless.
Anyway, I just read a quick editorial by James Carville, in which he basically puts it to Rush Limbaugh. Honestly, I guess that’s probably not very tough, given Rush has a history of saying moronic, racist, painkiller-induced, small-minded comments. Still, it’s worth a read. Check it here.
We are quickly approaching the end of the year and the end of an era. 2009 will see a new president, and I think everyone here at Shouzer is pretty excited about that. My question is, how excited are you? How much is Barack’s presidency worth? Let’s play a little game of what if.
What if John Kerry had defeated George Bush in the 2004 election? We would have been saved from the last four years of destruction, replacing them with a period of blandness. Now, when the 2008 election came along, Kerry, as the incumbent, would have been on the Democratic ticket. Some other Republican would have been flying the “Change we can believe in” banner, and Barack would have been a nobody.
The incumbent has a strong advantage so Kerry probably would have pulled off reelection. So let’s look now at the 2012 election. Kerry’s VP, Edwards, would hold a strong advantage in the Democratic primaries, though he probably would be fought by HR Clinton and Obama. Obama, by this point, would have been a senator for around 10 years part of the Washington establishment, no longer seen as an agent of change. Though it is obviously still plausible that he would come out on top here.
I could go on to list other scenarios, but I think you see my point. No George Bush for the last four years means no Barack Obama now. So is he worth it?
Anybody who’s read Shouzer with even the slightest consistency certainly knows that I have very liberal political views. It should come as no surprise, then, that I was ecstatic when MSNBC (gotta support MS, right?) announced Barack Obama would be our next president. On a large scale, it showed me the amazing level of growth our country has seen in the last 50 years–much less the last 200. Looking to the future, I felt the election signaled a very much needed change in direction for our country.
What really sucks, though, is that I’m not sure how much any president could do right now. Obama will likely be taking office with the worst economy since FDR, and our world image has probably not ever been worse than it is now. The fact that Bush will be leaving the presidency with the lowest approval ratings since those numbers have been recorded (lower even than Nixon’s when he resigned) only exemplifies the mess Obama will be taking over.
I guess my worry is that Obama’s presidency won’t live up to its potential, simply because he’ll spend his time cleaning up that mess. Here’s to hoping that won’t be the case. Personally, I would be happy even if Obama only got us back to where we were eight years ago–no wars, a budget surplus, and the respect of the world. I don’t need national healthcare and a lot of that stuff (though it would certainly be nice). I just want the country fixed.
I really do not understand this bailout business, but it feels to me like the same sort of fear-mongering we had pre-Iraq. We have this government “expert” telling us that disaster is imminent, and if we don’t knee-jerk react to agree with him, we will all rue the day.
On the other hand, I have read many articles by independent experts agreeing that we do, in fact, need to do something to fix this crisis. So I guess I would reluctantly agree that this investment needs to be made.
What really angers me though, is that the administration is fighting Congress about garnishing executives’ salaries. I don’t have a problem with these guys making multimillion dollar salaries under normal circumstances. They are managing billions of dollars, and high salaries come with high risks. Plus, these companies should want the best of the best for their chiefs, and they must pay for that kind of talent. However, when these executives run those companies into the ground, we the tax payers should not have to pay their huge salaries. Really, they should pay us for screwing us all by causing our investments to drop.
Henry Paulson, the treasury secretary, opposes theses wage limits because he feels it will cause many companies to hesitate to take assistance from the government. My question is, how is that a bad thing? I think companies should be hesitant to seek assistance from the government. It’s a last resort, not some sort of incentive program or grant to build small businesses.
NYTimes. Aaaron Sorkin. Obama meets Bartlet. Truly refreshing stuff.
OBAMA I’m not. They pivoted off the argument that I was inexperienced to the criticism that I’m — wait for it — the Messiah, who, by the way, was a community organizer. When I speak I try to lead with inspiration and aptitude. How is that a liability?
BARTLET Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it.
Eight years ago, I distinctly remember making an argument that, while his qualifications were meager in comparison to Al Gore, George W. Bush would make a good presidential choice. After all, his father was a former president, he had Colin Powell on his side, and he ran with a well-publicized inner-circle of strategists, experts, political leaders. Surely, this team would not fail.
I was wrong.
And I won’t be fooled again. Sarah Palin has given an opinion, spoken, writen or otherwise, about the war in Iraq, how to fix the economy, or international relations. She is going to need a gigantic team of advisers feeding her every line in every speech and in every town hall and in every debate. She is not ready to lead, and I highly doubt she will ever be ready to lead. The candidates themselves must be ready to govern the country and represent it in world affairs, not a committee of party insiders. It doesn’t work. The past eight years have proven is doesn’t work.
And a word of advice, if you happen to be a community organizer, I guess you should just quit your job and go the unemployment line. What a laughable role in this country you have! You deserve no respect.
I want to warn everybody that this post is a sort of random, stream of thought rant… With that out of the way, here goes.
I’m sitting here watching Rudy Giuliani talk at the RNC as I type. What it makes me realize is that I can’t stand the Republican party whatsoever these days. Scott mentioned below that we’re raised to hate the opposing party, and I think that’s true to an extent. But it’s the Republican’s hypocritical divisiveness that makes me dislike them. Most of his speech has been bashing Obama and his “lack of experience”, yet he’s going to be followed by Sarah Palin who has about 20 months experience as the governor of Alaska.
He’s talking about how Obama wants to expand the government, but forgets to mention that his party created the Department of Homeland Security, his party created the national ID, his party is for warrantless wiretaps. More government, more government, more government.
Giuliani talked a bit about how McCain wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy. He’s somehow forgotten how well that went when Bush did it. The economy is doing pitifully, and the national debt is the worst it’s ever been.
Oh, now he’s talking about the “executive experience” that Sarah Palin has; she’s got more than the democratic ticket combined. Yeah, because the mayor of a town of 5000 really has to make some tough decisions. Fuck, the president of most universities deals with more people. Oh yeah, then there was her 20 months as governor of Alaska. The entire state has a population of like 600,000. Woohoo! Yeah! Sorry, that’s not very impressive when I live 15 miles from Seattle, which has a larger urban population all by itself. I don’t consider the mayor of Seattle as a viable candidate for president. I doubt he does, either. Yet McCain’s focus thusfar has been how “unqualified” Obama is.
There’s always the fact that Obama is a “flip-flopper”. What’s an example? He said he’d accept public financing, then he changed his mind. Right. My guess is that when McCain got married, he made a promise to be faithful to his wife. Then he cheated on her. Talk about “flip-flopping”. Talk about family values…
Now we get to listen to Sarah Palin. She points out that Obama can give a whole speech about the war, but not mention the word victory. Oh, I’m sorry you naive moron.. We haven’t achieved victory there. Would you rather him lie to you, like Bush did? You remember the “Mission Accomplished” sign? That was a few years ago. Then, only a year ago, we sent 30,000 new troops there. Oh yeah, mission accomplished indeed. It doesn’t sound like a victory to me.
I could go on and on, but it just depresses me that people can actually stand this shit.
I am writing this in response to Jared’s News Bits post. As you can imagine, I have a lot to say about this topic as I have lots of friends in that city. Normally, I’d put this in a comment, but it’s probably going to be pretty long. I thought it deserved its own post.
Jared already linked you to a news article about the situation so I’m not going to repeat that, but I think it’s worth giving my take on the situation. The group in control of the government right now, the People Power Party (PPP), is accused of coruption by the opposing political parties which have come together under a common banner under the name People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). About two years ago, the military ousted the Thai Rak Thai (Thai Love Thai) party, and then ruled the country under a military junta for about a year. The coup was supported by street demonstrations by the then newly-formed PAD group. The military and the PAD strongly believed that the Thai Rak Thai government was corrupt and had come to power by buying rural votes. Now, the PAD is making the same accusation against the PPP as well as claiming that the PPP is merely a puppet of the dismantled Thai Rak Thai and its leader, Thaksin Shinawatra. This time, however, the military is refusing to intervene in the conflict, stating that another coup would be bad for the country. The PAD is refusing to back down until the PPP is removed from power, and they have mobilized many unions, particularly in the transportation sector, around the country to cripple its infrastructure.
Judging from what I saw in Bangkok, I would say it is extremely believable that the PPP is corrupt. There were physical signs of corruption all around Bangkok such as decades-old half-completed highways that were never completed because someone stole the money that was budgeted to build them. However, it is hard to see what the PAD truly hopes to accomplish. The PPP maintains strong popularity in rural Thailand, and they would probably win again if another election was held today. Presumably, then, the PAD is advocating for some sort of non-democratic government; ironic considering their name.
I find shocking similarity to our own government situation. We, too, have a party in power that is largely supported by rural voters and hated by the urban citizens. We, too, have large protests that turned violent (at the Republican National Convention). I think the biggest difference is toppling the government is seen as a viable option in Thailand because it is how they have historical dealt with political problems as a country. In the US, we had the good fortune of having forefathers who fought for revolution and then turned around and created a strong central government. That is an amazing feat when you compare the US to other democratic upstarts around the globe.
I look at the PAD with a certain amount of admiration. I question their end goal, but at least they care enough to fight for their country and do something. My personal apathy is truly appalling. I’m not suggesting when should start a sit-in at the White House demanding the impeachment of Bush, but maybe a little revolution would be healthy in our country. Our human nature as Americans is not better than that of the Thais. The only thing separating us is a historic precedent.
I was chatting with a certain friend of mine in Bangkok following the government declaration of the state of emergency yesterday, and she brought a fresh perspective that amazed me. I asked her which side she supported, and she answered “I am Thai. Everyone is Thai.” I realized today that this viewpoint has been completely eliminated from the American discourse. We are programmed to divide along party lines. One either supports the left or the right. The only other option is to support neither and hate both, a category I find myself in. The never-ending criticism constantly fueling the fires of negativity, insisting that we hate the opposing party. I hear so much of it that it makes me hate them both.
Somewhere that fourth choice of sorrowful disagreement has been lost in the haze. When two brothers fight, a strong family grieves for the lost love and urges reconciliation. They do not stoop to the level of the combatants and join the fray. Obviously, criticism is both necessary and healthy, but perhaps we take it too far and inadvertently add division and destruction to the American political arena. Perhaps instead, our refrain should be, “I am American. Everyone is American.”
I’m having trouble formulating this thought into words and sentences in my head, so the following could be a mess.
What’s so wrong about voting for someone who appears to be smarter than you? Better yet, should that not be our collective mission? When electing someone to public office, especially that of the executive branch, I’m quite certain that it is in my best interest to mark the box next to the name of the person who is least likely to be at the same aptitude level as my friends and neighbors. I want someone who is overly intelligent, whose education far exceeds my own, who, when faced with a decision that affects the lives of millions, would be better equipped than me to lead in the right direction.
Nevertheless, popular opinion seems to reflect that this is not something to be desired in running for office. That “aw shux,” “just one of the guys” act was probably one of the biggest reasons that our current president was elected over either of his opponents. How has that worked out? Again, what is the appeal? When one candidate attacks another for being “elitist,” that should be almost a backhanded compliment. “Thank you very much, yes, I do consider myself to be well-educated, and knowledgeable about many things in which you are not.”
That is my thought for the day. If presidential decisions were easy enough to be made by the guy whose locker was next to mine in high school, then the framers of the constitution probably wouldn’t have been so concerned about it. But things are not that way. One of our candidates has graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, has over a decade of experience in Chicago politics and the U.S. Senate, and picked a VP mate who has been in the Senate for over 35 years, heading up multiple committees. Those two men are WAY more equipped than me to do almost anything. But that makes them the lesser candidates, according to some… I just don’t get it.
Over the weekend, Obama announced that he had chosen Joe Biden as his running mate. Biden is an experienced, six term senator from Delaware, currently serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You’d think that’d be a good thing, right?
No, apparently in politics it underscores the fact that Obama isn’t ready to be president. Why else would he have chosen somebody who had so much more experience than him? Oh, it also shows that Obama can’t deal with other countries. That’s why he needed somebody with Biden’s experience in foreign relations. Mmmhmm. That’s how it works.
Obama’s selection couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that he believed Biden might be the right person for the job. No, of course not. Realistically, he probably could have picked somebody who would deliver more votes (ala Edwards). Instead, it looks like he focused on choosing somebody that deserved to be vice-president (that should not be taken as a shot against Edwards).
This is why politics is stupid. Rather than focusing on who Biden is and what he brings to the table, everybody’s analyzing the choice and coming to dumbass conclusions. What a waste.
1. After the Bush administration, the country will have an extremely lopsided election with 100% of democrats and a fair amount of republicans and independents voting blue, no matter the candidate.
Recent evidence shows that I was far too hopeful, and I am still surprised. I thought most people wanted to stop losing lives in Iraq. I thought most people were being hurt by the economy. My assumptions must have been wrong. I now see that there are still many, many voters who want to stay in Iraq, and many, many voters who want the same leadership in the economy. I also thought that universal healthcare would be be a welcome matter, but here again, I was incorrect.
2. People who support Hillary Clinton are doing so because of her stance on issues.
This one is just as big of a surprise to me, because statement #2 is clearly false. If it were true, we would see every single HRC voter throwing his/her weight behind Barack Obama; as far as issues go, they are nearly in complete alignment. However, HRC supporters are taking stabs at Obama, threatening not to vote in the GE, and backing the stance “McCain in ’08, HRC in ’12″. Someone please explain this to me. It is utterly inconceivable. It’s like wanting a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with grape jelly, but you only have strawberry, and instead of eating the strawberry jelly, you eat peanut butter and mayonnaise until your mom gets back from the store in 4 years. It’s f–king fruit jelly, and you’ll probably never know the difference! Eat that sh-t, so you don’t have to swallow the mayonnaise!
Further, if HRC supporters think that Obama primary voters were sexist, what do they call not voting at all? Is it not also sexist to abstain from voting for a man because you favor a woman?
Someone explain these things to me…
So it turns out that it only took 7.5 years, but I finally agree with Bush about something. Basically, Congress voted to stop filling the strategic petroleum reserve in an effort to lower gas prices. Bush is opposed, because he doesn’t believe it would affect oil prices, and he thinks national security is more important.
Now, granted, Bush has taken ‘national security’ to the extreme in his tenure as president, but I think he’s right about this one. Yes, gas is expensive, and it pisses me off. I just don’t think this is the right move. Overzealous military man or not, he’s right that we shouldn’t put ourselves at risk (however small) over this. I also don’t personally believe that this will affect oil prices in the least.
I’ve pretty much stopped paying attention to any political news lately, which would probably be fairly surprising to anybody who knows me. I was trying to figure out why, and I realized I think it’s because I just can’t stand Hilary. She just pisses me off. I’m not sure exactly what it is, honestly, but anytime I hear her talk I want to rip off my ears. And that can’t be a good sign.
I’m really surprised that Hilary’s even still around. It doesn’t seem like anybody really likes her more than Obama, and yet she keeps get votes. I hear talk about people being inspired by Obama and believing he can make a real change in the country. I don’t hear the same things about Hilary. So who the fuck keeps voting for her? For real, Hildog, I wanna know what your game is.
Suppose we are at war, and I take you prisoner. Let’s say I believe you have information that may be valuable to me, but you won’t divulge it with my ordinary interrogation tactics. So then I strap you down, cover your face with a cloth, and pour water on you to simulate the experience of drowning. Is that torture? Better question: how is that not torture? Apparently, though, it is not.