10.18.12
Posted in ALL, Barack Obama, Climate Change, Economy, Election 2012, Environment, Health, Mitt Romney, The Supreme Court
at 10:55 am
Did Obama do a better job of challenging the weakness of Romney’s positions in the second debate? Yes. But it’s hard to revel in that, because what the debate in New York told me was that even if Obama wins the election, the right has already won.
How can that be? How can the right win on a platform that promises to create jobs when they control the government even though government can’t create jobs (in their words),
while spending even less on everything in society except the military which never asked for the money in the first place, while promising to cut the deficit by reducing revenue and eliminating tax deductions which wouldn’t make up the difference even if they did specify them (and they won’t)?
For the answer, look to what the supposed liberal said in Tuesday’s debate:
Education and Infrastructure: Yes, Obama talked about investing in schools, alternative sources of energy, and general infrastructure. But these aren’t uniquely liberal; both parties have long supported them to one degree or another. Just because the G.O.P. has nearly abandoned them for now doesn’t make them liberal ideas. Obama walked the center line like it was a tight rope.
“… Fact check — there was no Republican from Texas or West Virginia on the stage that night. No, it was President Obama.”
Taxes: Sure, Obama is fighting the G.O.P.’s insistence that the rich should not have to pay more in taxes, but he’s not arguing for any 80-90% F.D.R.-era tax levels. He’s only asking for a return to the rates the super-rich paid under Clinton: 39.6%. That’s even lower than during most of the Reagan years, when top rates were 50%. And people like Romney need not worry even about that; most of their income is capital gains, and under Obama those would still be taxed at less than 25%.
Energy: The first guy who spoke on this topic touted high production levels of oil, natural gas, and coal. But wait, fact check — there was no Republican from Texas or West Virginia on the stage that night. No, it was President Obama. “We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my — the previous president was an oil man.” Yes, Obama boasted about drilling more than George W. Bush.
Sure, he went on to plug efficiency and clean energy, but cheering on record levels of fossil fuel production and parroting the coal industry’s “clean coal” oxymoron are moves I’d expect from a Republican in a ten-gallon hat. As for climate change, it’s true that if Republicans win the Senate, James Inhofe, the G.O.P.’s top climate change denier, would chair the committee that oversees the EPA. We’d hear no plans to fight climate change from the Senate. But 90 minutes of prime time debate and we didn’t hear anything about climate change from the Democratic candidate, either.
Gun control: The horror of large-scale massacres going down in schools, theaters, and other public places is an awkward reminder for Democratic leaders that they’ve abandoned any serious effort to make even the worst guns any less available. While Democrats used to argue for tougher restrictions on the most deadly guns, the Republican response has always been to “enforce the laws we’ve already got.” But that quote on Tuesday was from President Obama. His position? “What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally.” I’d expect such a milquetoast response from Governor Romney.
As for the assault weapons ban that both parties let expire, the President bravely endorsed “seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban introduced.” (Obama to NRA – “Nothing to fear here.”) And Obama led his entire answer on gun control with Republican rhetoric about the Second Amendment and hunting and sportsmen rather than challenging the pro-gun extremism that tolerates bloody massacres in American towns. It was a battle between the right and the right; the left was not in the building.
Obama stood up for Democratic values in a couple of places, most notably on pay equity and contraceptive coverage for women. And he defended the Affordable Healthcare Act in the first debate, but just because Republicans want to repeal it doesn’t make it a liberal policy. It’s nearly identical to the one Romney himself enacted in Massachusetts. (Obama never floated a single player plan, nor even a public option.)
Liberals watching these debates are resigned to crossing their fingers the president will defend the center-right policies that have marked his first term against the farther-right alternatives of today’s Republicans.
This doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter who wins. A Republican victory would move the Supreme Court even further to the right, making it the most conservative in history. That alone is enough reason for Democrats to ensure Obama wins a second term. But a Democratic White House should be an opportunity to apply progressive alternatives to the current corporate- and military-centered landscape, not just a waiting period before Republicans regain control and drive the country further right again.
The Democrats under Obama have been occupying the center and center-right not just in the campaign but throughout Obama’s presidency. He may well win a second term in November, but judging from the terms of debate Obama has imposed on himself, the right is doing just fine either way.
Permalink
08.09.12
Posted in ALL, Barack Obama, Economy, Election 2012, Health, Media, Mitt Romney, The Supreme Court
at 11:11 am
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen’s off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
Feed your head, feed your head.
-White Rabbit, Jefferson Airplane
It’s the dog days of summer and as the presidential race of 2012 heats up, politics are resembling Alice’s Wonderland and common sense is rare as rain.
Fans of democracy like myself might expect a quadrennial, national election to feature the issues of the day – how much to regulate banks to prevent another financial disaster, how to attack the ever-growing problem of climate change, and maybe – just maybe – how to keep the worst weapons out of the hands of the craziest people.
“All the pundits are saying this election is going to be about jobs and the economy. I disagree.”
But the President seems to have run out of steam on the first issue, hit a wall on the second one, and punted on the third, and the man who wants his job, Mitt Romney, thinks none of those is a problem in the first place. In fact, Romney wants to gut what few common-sense banking rules Congress did manage to pass as if he’s trying to most closely recreate the exact point in 2008 when the financial feces hit the fan.
And as Republicans try to shrink state voter rolls as insurance against their candidate’s likeability problem, the political dialogue is sounding as senseless as the language in Wonderland.
The President may have passed a health care plan forged by a conservative think tank, adopted by a Republican governor, and approved by a conservative chief justice, yet Romney’s party has labeled it socialist, and Romney of course was the Republican who adopted it years before Obama. Calling the health care act socialist would mean Romney is also a socialist, but that hasn’t stopped the G.O.P. from hurling the charges. What does that say about the state of the party?
And just last month, Obama’s health secretary gave states more flexibility in their administration of welfare reform. In a nod to conservative values of states’ rights, local control, etc., they allowed states to adopt innovative strategies to get people from welfare to work, contingent upon them reaching measurable targets.
In short, Obama did exactly what conservatives wanted, and – wait for it – Romney himself asked for such flexibility when he was governor. But rather than thanking him, or even slyly changing the subject, Romney’s campaign attacked him on it, falsely stating in a TV ad that he was “gutting” welfare reform.
In fact, on just about every issue, President Obama has addressed national problems with centrist policies bordering on center-right. When a candidate resembles the sitting president so closely, apart from his whiteness and his $230 million net worth, I suppose he’ll do anything to draw a contrast. But if you’re a voter, you don’t have to buy it.
All the pundits are saying this election is going to be about jobs and the economy. I disagree. The 2012 race is turning out to be a referendum on common sense.
And right now, it looks like it could go either way.
Permalink
02.16.12
Posted in ALL, Cartoons, Election 2012, Health, Media, Newt Gingrich, Religion, Rick Santorum
at 12:49 am
The Republicans’ current non-Romney stand-in, former senator Rick Santorum, is widely regarded as out of touch and a little bit 14th century, even among mainstream pundits used to grading G.O.P characters on a steep curve. But one thing they all agree on is how devoted he is to his faith. Sure, Santorum may want to improve the Land of the Free by requiring all public policies to be based on Rick’s faith, but gosh darn it, he really believes in it, unlike those “cafeteria Catholics.”
But then how to reconcile Santorum’s love-thy-neighbor religion with his stance on, well, Jesus, nearly anything? Wanting states to have the right to ban birth control? Equating gay sex with child rape and bestiality? Blaming priests’ abuse of children on progressive culture?
What’s more, while he obsesses over what’s happening in people’s bedrooms, there are at least ten significant Catholic church teachings which Santorum (and fellow-Catholic Gingrich) violate (see Juan Cole’s piece at Informed Comment).
So perhaps those so-called values voters responsible for Santorum’s surge should stop looking for the anti-christ in the White House and take a closer look at the guy atop their shoulders.
(In fact, if you plug Santorum’s recent campaign schedule into Google Earth you see a highly disturbing pattern…)
Permalink
10.26.11
Posted in ALL, Climate Change, Government, Health, Religion, Satire
at 11:55 am
“Life begins at conception.”
It’s not just a slogan. It’s also a bumper sticker.
And now, the state of Mississippi is considering an amendment to change the definition of “person” to include a fertilized egg. By using the constitution to transform blastocysts into people, lawmakers could achieve in an instant what gestating women used to drag out for months.
Across the country, state governments are suddenly seeing the potential to use their own legal codes to push aggressive social agendas. “Mississippi has shown that we don’t always have to allow reality to influence what happens on the ground,” one Texas lawmaker reflected. “We’re now aggressively seeking new opportunities to use the law to dictate reality.”
Here’s a roundup of amendments and ballot initiatives currently on the table in other U.S. states.
God Bless the U.S.A. (Tennessee) Would formally require God, as defined in the King James bible, to lay blessings upon the North American continent (excluding Canada and Mexico), including acreage in the Pacific wrested from the natives of the Hawaiian islands. The frequency of blessings would remain at the Lord’s discretion.
Meat is Murder (Washington) Would designate the consumption, preparation, enjoyment, discussion, and presence of meat as a new class of homicide. Would classify as murder not only the meat of livestock but also any fertilized barnyard embryos which may or may not one day become meat.
Global Warming is a Hoax (Wyoming) Would redesignate all scientific research suggesting the climate may be warming as “elaborate-stunt” research. Would require any climate scientist setting foot in Wyoming to admit their life’s work and paltry scientist salaries are all in the service of a long-running, climate-based gag, and to finally explain why they would waste such time and effort just to get people to change to better lightbulbs.
Life Begins at Copulation (Florida) Would take Mississippi’s designation of life beginning at conception and push it further forward, legislating that for all legal and medical purposes, the act of sex, which only occurs between a man and a woman, constitutes birth. It further defines life as beginning the moment a necktie is loosened or a petticoat is first espied.
Life Begins at Inebriation (Louisiana) Would take Florida’s designation of life beginning at copulation and push it even further forward. Recognizing drinking as a common precedent to sex, the amendment would require the state to increase its population count by one person when the soon-to-be parent’s blood alcohol content meets or exceeds .08. If it is during Mardi Gras and the woman’s breasts are exposed, the state may also declare her unfit as a parent at that time.
Note: We intentionally omitted Minnesota’s failed referendum, “Life Begins at Masturbation.” It bitterly divided the state’s citizens last month, the measure’s backers believing it was a bold move to protect the lives of unborn children, University of Minnesota scientists insisting masturbation rarely causes pregnancy, and the Church denying masturbation’s existence.
Permalink
