"I don't belong to any organized party," Will Rogers liked to say, "I'm a Democrat."
Imagine Jon Stewart in a cowboy hat, twirling a lariat and talking with a nasal twang. That was Will Rogers in the 1930s, the most popular political satirist of his time, who did monologues back then on the idiocy of the Washington power structure.
Imagine what he would have to say about superdelegates, caucuses and the Florida-Michigan brouhaha.
“Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats," Rogers explained. "If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.”
Nothing changes, except to get funnier--and sadder. The cowboy nailed it all by observing, "The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected."
When Washington lawmakers wanted to put up a statue of him, Rogers agreed but only if it were facing the House Chamber, so he could "keep an eye on Congress." It's the only one facing the entrance and, according to Capitol guides, Presidents rub his left shoe for good luck before entering to give the State of the Union Address.
The old cowboy would get a kick out of that.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Monday, March 10, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
A Few Words From Bush's Gunga Dim
William Kristol, the Neo-Con water carrier, finds inspiration today in the poet of empire, Rudyard Kipling, via George Orwell, a literary confluence that boggles the 21st century mind.
From an Orwell essay on Kipling discovered in a used-book store, Kristol finds a parallel for today's Democrats with the British "permanent and pensioned opposition," whose quality of thought deteriorated because it was "not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.”
Modestly asking our leave to "vulgarize the implications of Orwell’s argument a bit," the New York Times' newest sage adapts the wisdom of the author of "White Man's Burden" to belabor opposition to the war in Iraq and illegal eavesdropping as the acts of decadent Democrats who have forgotten how to take responsibility for the use of power.
Cheerfully ignoring the fate of the British Empire that Kipling celebrated, Kristol advises Bush detractors to step up and emulate those men of action who muddled up the Middle East a century ago.
He ends with a more recent historical reference: "To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?"
Kristol may want to take note of something JFK also said, "You can't beat brains."
From an Orwell essay on Kipling discovered in a used-book store, Kristol finds a parallel for today's Democrats with the British "permanent and pensioned opposition," whose quality of thought deteriorated because it was "not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.”
Modestly asking our leave to "vulgarize the implications of Orwell’s argument a bit," the New York Times' newest sage adapts the wisdom of the author of "White Man's Burden" to belabor opposition to the war in Iraq and illegal eavesdropping as the acts of decadent Democrats who have forgotten how to take responsibility for the use of power.
Cheerfully ignoring the fate of the British Empire that Kipling celebrated, Kristol advises Bush detractors to step up and emulate those men of action who muddled up the Middle East a century ago.
He ends with a more recent historical reference: "To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?"
Kristol may want to take note of something JFK also said, "You can't beat brains."
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Media Mistrust: The Tipping Point
According to the latest Gallup Poll, Americans passed a milestone four years ago and have never looked back: More than half of us now have little or no confidence that mass media--newspapers, TV and radio--report the news fully, fairly and accurately.
Thirty years ago, only 26 percent felt that way. The gap then between Republicans and Democrats was only 10 percent. Today it is a chasm, with twice as many Republicans mistrustful of the news they are getting.
In the wake of Watergate, the public didn’t blame the messengers for delivering political bad news. In the post-9/11 world, they do and accuse them of distorting it.
Behind this change is the difference in the amount of news we get and how we get it. Before 24/7 cable and the Web, newspaper front pages and the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC packaged our perception of the world and, for better or worse, there were few other sources of information to challenge what they gave us.
Walter Cronkite signed off every night, saying “That’s the way it is,” and most Americans had no way to doubt it.
Today, there are millions of Walter Cronkites on cable and the Web to decide for themselves the way it is and, although they still depend on MSM for most of the hard news, they decide for themselves what it means.
Mistrust and rancor are part of the price we pay for this privilege, but after the Bush-Cheney era gives way to a likely Democratic Administration, will partisan dissatisfaction with the news shift as well? Or do Republicans have the patent on media-bashing?
Thirty years ago, only 26 percent felt that way. The gap then between Republicans and Democrats was only 10 percent. Today it is a chasm, with twice as many Republicans mistrustful of the news they are getting.
In the wake of Watergate, the public didn’t blame the messengers for delivering political bad news. In the post-9/11 world, they do and accuse them of distorting it.
Behind this change is the difference in the amount of news we get and how we get it. Before 24/7 cable and the Web, newspaper front pages and the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC packaged our perception of the world and, for better or worse, there were few other sources of information to challenge what they gave us.
Walter Cronkite signed off every night, saying “That’s the way it is,” and most Americans had no way to doubt it.
Today, there are millions of Walter Cronkites on cable and the Web to decide for themselves the way it is and, although they still depend on MSM for most of the hard news, they decide for themselves what it means.
Mistrust and rancor are part of the price we pay for this privilege, but after the Bush-Cheney era gives way to a likely Democratic Administration, will partisan dissatisfaction with the news shift as well? Or do Republicans have the patent on media-bashing?
Friday, September 21, 2007
Saddam Then, Now MoveOn
When our Way of Life is threatened, members of the United States Senate will stand up and be counted.
In October of 2002, the Upper Chamber voted to invade Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein and remove the threat of his Weapons of Mass Destruction by 77-23.
Five years later, the Senate did not flinch from its duty once again and voted yesterday to defend America from Advertising of General Destruction by 72-25.
The minority was populated by a dozen of the same misguided Democrats who fancied themselves candidates for a 21st century version of “Profiles in Courage” for opposing the Administration’s resolve to free the Middle East of anti-American influences back then--Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, Murray, Reed, Stabenow and Wyden.
President Bush set them straight at his press conference by pointing out forcefully that the MoveOn ad was a “disgusting...attack...on the U. S. military,” a virtual Pearl Harbor that “leaders in the Democrat party” failed to resist.
Some politicians never learn.
In October of 2002, the Upper Chamber voted to invade Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein and remove the threat of his Weapons of Mass Destruction by 77-23.
Five years later, the Senate did not flinch from its duty once again and voted yesterday to defend America from Advertising of General Destruction by 72-25.
The minority was populated by a dozen of the same misguided Democrats who fancied themselves candidates for a 21st century version of “Profiles in Courage” for opposing the Administration’s resolve to free the Middle East of anti-American influences back then--Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, Murray, Reed, Stabenow and Wyden.
President Bush set them straight at his press conference by pointing out forcefully that the MoveOn ad was a “disgusting...attack...on the U. S. military,” a virtual Pearl Harbor that “leaders in the Democrat party” failed to resist.
Some politicians never learn.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Christmas in August for John Edwards
The ’08 campaign pace in Iowa is as intense as it was a month before Democrats chose John Kerry in 2004 with a new poll showing Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and—-surprise--John Edwards in a virtual tie.
Six months before the January 14th caucuses, Iowans have donated as much money, attended as many campaign events and received as many phone calls as they did in December 2003.
Edwards, who placed second last time, is making an all-out effort there to beat the two national front runners, with a week-long bus tour this month to pound home the message of his poverty campaign: “I want America to join us, all of us, to end the great work Bobby Kennedy started.”
Clinton and Obama are working hard too for a victory in the first ’08 test of strength. The former First Lady’s secret weapon is two-time Governor Tom Vilsack, a possible running mate, who is auditioning by playing surrogate in the spat over meeting with unfriendly foreign leaders.
Vilsack, in expressing “disappointment” with Obama’s attacks on Clinton, told voters, “It’s not the Iowa way.”
Meanwhile, Obama is showing considerable strength with potential caucus-goers expressing interest in his “new ideas and new direction.”
In a state with a reputation for being “contrary,” where caucus members stand in designated areas and yammer at one another and traditionally make up their minds at the last moment, anything can happen. John Edwards, for one, is hoping that it will.
Six months before the January 14th caucuses, Iowans have donated as much money, attended as many campaign events and received as many phone calls as they did in December 2003.
Edwards, who placed second last time, is making an all-out effort there to beat the two national front runners, with a week-long bus tour this month to pound home the message of his poverty campaign: “I want America to join us, all of us, to end the great work Bobby Kennedy started.”
Clinton and Obama are working hard too for a victory in the first ’08 test of strength. The former First Lady’s secret weapon is two-time Governor Tom Vilsack, a possible running mate, who is auditioning by playing surrogate in the spat over meeting with unfriendly foreign leaders.
Vilsack, in expressing “disappointment” with Obama’s attacks on Clinton, told voters, “It’s not the Iowa way.”
Meanwhile, Obama is showing considerable strength with potential caucus-goers expressing interest in his “new ideas and new direction.”
In a state with a reputation for being “contrary,” where caucus members stand in designated areas and yammer at one another and traditionally make up their minds at the last moment, anything can happen. John Edwards, for one, is hoping that it will.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
"American Idol" Debate
The YouTube questioners tonight were more inventive and at times funnier than the usual MSM suspects, but the candidates, egged on by an applauding audience, were even more preening and self-congratulating than usual.
Book-ended by Mike Gravel’s scolding and Denis Kucinich’s certainty about everything, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were selling their hundred years of experience as Senators, Bill Richardson was pushing his claim that Governors were better bets, John Edwards was fervently sincere and uxorious, Barack Obama kept reminding everybody he was against the war in Iraq before it started and Hillary Clinton was oozing leadership by being firm while patronizingly patting the also-rans on the head for being good little Democrats instead of bad old Republicans.
With Anderson Cooper as the amiable M.C. of the variety show, detailed answers to substantive questions would have spoiled the fun. Next: The candidates trade one-liners with a panel of Leno, Letterman, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.
Book-ended by Mike Gravel’s scolding and Denis Kucinich’s certainty about everything, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were selling their hundred years of experience as Senators, Bill Richardson was pushing his claim that Governors were better bets, John Edwards was fervently sincere and uxorious, Barack Obama kept reminding everybody he was against the war in Iraq before it started and Hillary Clinton was oozing leadership by being firm while patronizingly patting the also-rans on the head for being good little Democrats instead of bad old Republicans.
With Anderson Cooper as the amiable M.C. of the variety show, detailed answers to substantive questions would have spoiled the fun. Next: The candidates trade one-liners with a panel of Leno, Letterman, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Health Care, Seriously
“Sicko” aside, health care is moving front and center as the domestic issue for Democrats while Republicans still maunder about keeping us safe from terrorists.
A Washington Post headline today sums up their approach: “For Democrats, Pragmatism On Universal Health Care”
It’s a little like saying, “There are burglars in the house, but let’s be cautious about getting them out.”
The burglars are private insurers who take almost one out of every three dollars we spend and give us the most expensive and some of the worst care in the world. But no one wants to get them out, lock the doors and start over.
Whenever good sense enters the debate, lobbyists for the thieves yell “socialized medicine” and politicians duck for cover. But when the rest of America complains about anti-social medicine, they turn deaf.
The situation is neatly summed up by Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who has become, according to the Post, “possibly the party's most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates.” But even the realist knows better.
"Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over," said Gruber, a consultant for the three leading Democrats. "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better--I just think they're political non-starters."
The “non-starters” are variations of a single-payer system which, according to the more than 8,000 physicians who back it, would save $350 billion a year, “enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”
Opponents raise the terrible specter of a government bureaucracy that would replace the private one that spends so much time and effort finding ways to deny claims rather than facilitate them.
We get most of our mail through “a self-supporting postal corporation wholly owned by the federal government” while those who can afford it use FedEx and other private providers. Why not our medical care? We have the example of Medicare which is far from perfect but works reasonably well for older Americans.
As we gird ourselves for the headache-inducing health care plans of the Presidential candidates, someone should stand up for the “non-starter,” a potential cure that none of them has the courage to propose.
A Washington Post headline today sums up their approach: “For Democrats, Pragmatism On Universal Health Care”
It’s a little like saying, “There are burglars in the house, but let’s be cautious about getting them out.”
The burglars are private insurers who take almost one out of every three dollars we spend and give us the most expensive and some of the worst care in the world. But no one wants to get them out, lock the doors and start over.
Whenever good sense enters the debate, lobbyists for the thieves yell “socialized medicine” and politicians duck for cover. But when the rest of America complains about anti-social medicine, they turn deaf.
The situation is neatly summed up by Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who has become, according to the Post, “possibly the party's most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates.” But even the realist knows better.
"Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over," said Gruber, a consultant for the three leading Democrats. "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better--I just think they're political non-starters."
The “non-starters” are variations of a single-payer system which, according to the more than 8,000 physicians who back it, would save $350 billion a year, “enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”
Opponents raise the terrible specter of a government bureaucracy that would replace the private one that spends so much time and effort finding ways to deny claims rather than facilitate them.
We get most of our mail through “a self-supporting postal corporation wholly owned by the federal government” while those who can afford it use FedEx and other private providers. Why not our medical care? We have the example of Medicare which is far from perfect but works reasonably well for older Americans.
As we gird ourselves for the headache-inducing health care plans of the Presidential candidates, someone should stand up for the “non-starter,” a potential cure that none of them has the courage to propose.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Bush 41, Edwards, Dowd and Me
In her New York Times column today about John Edwards, Maureen Dowd takes a detour when the candidate tells her that, after praising a book about Socrates, he was “jumped on” because the author, I. F. Stone, was allegedly a Soviet agent.
In response, Dowd writes: “I tell the Democrat that Poppy Bush drolly told the story about his ’64 Texas Senate race, when a John Birch Society pamphlet suggested that Barbara Bush’s father, the president of McCall Publishing, put out a Communist manifesto called Redbook.”
That comes as news to me, and I was editor of Redbook at the time, working for Mrs. Bush’s father, who was as Republican as you can get but had Democrats like me editing his magazines because, as Henry Luce succinctly put it, “Those Republican bastards can’t write.”
Now, almost half a century later, here I am blogging away at the Bushes’ son for subverting American democracy. Maybe those John Birch Society nuts were onto something.
In response, Dowd writes: “I tell the Democrat that Poppy Bush drolly told the story about his ’64 Texas Senate race, when a John Birch Society pamphlet suggested that Barbara Bush’s father, the president of McCall Publishing, put out a Communist manifesto called Redbook.”
That comes as news to me, and I was editor of Redbook at the time, working for Mrs. Bush’s father, who was as Republican as you can get but had Democrats like me editing his magazines because, as Henry Luce succinctly put it, “Those Republican bastards can’t write.”
Now, almost half a century later, here I am blogging away at the Bushes’ son for subverting American democracy. Maybe those John Birch Society nuts were onto something.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Debating by the Book
Disingenuousness is always in the air at Presidential debates, but tonight’s Democratic do promises some new wrinkles.
For a start, the network announcement makes it sound like a book promotion: “Inspired by the book The Covenant with Black America, the All-American Presidential Forums on PBS marks the first time that a panel comprised of journalists of color will be represented in primetime. Many of the questions that will be asked of the candidates focus on key domestic priorities that were originally outlined in the book.”
The moderator will be Tavis Smiley, a talk show host who edited the best-seller. “Immediate public feedback on the performance of the candidates,” PBS notes, “will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz.” Some Democrats would describe Luntz more accurately as a Republican hack who twists words to deceive voters.
In this setting, the candidates will be tempted to sell the sincerity of their concern for African American voters. The real test will be how well they restrain the intensity of their puckering up and address issues in realistic terms that won’t insult the intelligence of their audience.
For a start, the network announcement makes it sound like a book promotion: “Inspired by the book The Covenant with Black America, the All-American Presidential Forums on PBS marks the first time that a panel comprised of journalists of color will be represented in primetime. Many of the questions that will be asked of the candidates focus on key domestic priorities that were originally outlined in the book.”
The moderator will be Tavis Smiley, a talk show host who edited the best-seller. “Immediate public feedback on the performance of the candidates,” PBS notes, “will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz.” Some Democrats would describe Luntz more accurately as a Republican hack who twists words to deceive voters.
In this setting, the candidates will be tempted to sell the sincerity of their concern for African American voters. The real test will be how well they restrain the intensity of their puckering up and address issues in realistic terms that won’t insult the intelligence of their audience.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Bloomberg's Best Bet: Run as a Democrat
This weekend’s TV talkathon has been about New York’s Mayor leaving the Republican Party to run for President as an Independent. But as this politically dissonant year goes on, it may make more sense for Mike Bloomberg to go for the Democratic nomination.
Anyone willing to spend half a billion dollars on a campaign, as Bloomberg is, should not be eager to put a sizable portion of it into creating an organization and getting on the ballot in every state.
A lifelong Democrat, Bloomberg became a Republican for tactical reasons in 2001 to run for Mayor. Now he has changed his registration to “unaffiliated.”
For the past six years, the Mayor has been a Republican in name only. A leading Democratic political consultant said about him this week: “If you closed your eyes and you were told that someone was pro-public education, pro-choice, pro-immigration rights, pro-gun control, pro-civil rights, pro-gay rights and pro-women’s rights--you would be pretty happy if you were a Democrat.”
When that candidate has been called America’s “leading centrist” by George Will and potentially “the most efficient President” by media baron and fellow billionaire Rupert Murdoch, visions of a political realignment began to seem possible: the Democratic center freed from the stigma of “special interests” coupled with traditional pre-Bush Republicans who want to take back their party from the radical right allied with voters so disgusted with both parties that they call themselves Independent.
Two big but not insurmountable obstacles to the Democratic nomination are Hillary Clinton and the war in Iraq, and it may be their nexus that could open the door for Bloomberg.
She is still struggling to overcome her 2002 vote, seen by anti-war Democrats as a huge albatross. As Mayor of the nation’s most vulnerable city, Bloomberg has been less than ardent in supporting our involvement in Iraq and has begun to back away from it.
Two weeks ago, he told Google employees that America “is really in trouble.” “There’s the war, there is our relationships around the world,” Bloomberg said. “Our reputation has been hurt very badly in the last few years” and he criticized a “go-it-alone mentality” in an increasingly interconnected world.
Despite all the money and organization behind her, Hillary Clinton’s negatives will not disappear and, from here to November ’08, Democrats will be worrying about the Republicans’ glee at the prospect of running against her, no matter who they nominate.
Bloomberg’s lack of passion and charisma may be less than fatal to his chances for the Democratic nomination. Bill Clinton almost put the 1988 convention to sleep with his boring oratory before remaking himself as the anti-Bush four years later.
Hillary may be too late, Obama too early and John Edwards too insubstantial for ’08. Al Gore, who seems to have lost his taste for elective politics, might find Bloomberg more palatable than any of them in both substance and temperament to stand in for what he stands for.
Behind the scenes, the Mayor has kept his ties to the Democratic Leadership Council and other power centers of the party. If he doesn’t wait too long, he could get into that game and rake in all the chips.
If he can create something that passes for unity in his once-and-future party, Bloomberg would be in good shape for a head-to-head confrontation with Giuliani’s volatility, Romney’s emptiness (his Mormon faith might be more of an issue than the Mayor’s Jewish background) or Fred Thompson’s lack of experience in managing a corner grocery store, let alone the largest bureaucracy in the world.
To run as an Independent, Bloomberg would have to depend on support from the likes of Unity08, which is planning online voting to pick their candidate, not too promising for someone who wants to win not to run a feel-good campaign like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot.
There is precedent for party-switching by New York Mayors. John Lindsay was elected as a Republican in 1965, turned Democrat in 1971 and ran for President in his new party’s primaries a year later. He failed, but Bloomberg has much more going for him.
Last month, while being honored as one of Time’s 100 most influential people, the Mayor paid warm tribute to Red Auerbach, the legendary coach of the Boston Celtics, for knowing how to win with honest effort and without “trash talk.”
He was obviously thinking about more than basketball.
Anyone willing to spend half a billion dollars on a campaign, as Bloomberg is, should not be eager to put a sizable portion of it into creating an organization and getting on the ballot in every state.
A lifelong Democrat, Bloomberg became a Republican for tactical reasons in 2001 to run for Mayor. Now he has changed his registration to “unaffiliated.”
For the past six years, the Mayor has been a Republican in name only. A leading Democratic political consultant said about him this week: “If you closed your eyes and you were told that someone was pro-public education, pro-choice, pro-immigration rights, pro-gun control, pro-civil rights, pro-gay rights and pro-women’s rights--you would be pretty happy if you were a Democrat.”
When that candidate has been called America’s “leading centrist” by George Will and potentially “the most efficient President” by media baron and fellow billionaire Rupert Murdoch, visions of a political realignment began to seem possible: the Democratic center freed from the stigma of “special interests” coupled with traditional pre-Bush Republicans who want to take back their party from the radical right allied with voters so disgusted with both parties that they call themselves Independent.
Two big but not insurmountable obstacles to the Democratic nomination are Hillary Clinton and the war in Iraq, and it may be their nexus that could open the door for Bloomberg.
She is still struggling to overcome her 2002 vote, seen by anti-war Democrats as a huge albatross. As Mayor of the nation’s most vulnerable city, Bloomberg has been less than ardent in supporting our involvement in Iraq and has begun to back away from it.
Two weeks ago, he told Google employees that America “is really in trouble.” “There’s the war, there is our relationships around the world,” Bloomberg said. “Our reputation has been hurt very badly in the last few years” and he criticized a “go-it-alone mentality” in an increasingly interconnected world.
Despite all the money and organization behind her, Hillary Clinton’s negatives will not disappear and, from here to November ’08, Democrats will be worrying about the Republicans’ glee at the prospect of running against her, no matter who they nominate.
Bloomberg’s lack of passion and charisma may be less than fatal to his chances for the Democratic nomination. Bill Clinton almost put the 1988 convention to sleep with his boring oratory before remaking himself as the anti-Bush four years later.
Hillary may be too late, Obama too early and John Edwards too insubstantial for ’08. Al Gore, who seems to have lost his taste for elective politics, might find Bloomberg more palatable than any of them in both substance and temperament to stand in for what he stands for.
Behind the scenes, the Mayor has kept his ties to the Democratic Leadership Council and other power centers of the party. If he doesn’t wait too long, he could get into that game and rake in all the chips.
If he can create something that passes for unity in his once-and-future party, Bloomberg would be in good shape for a head-to-head confrontation with Giuliani’s volatility, Romney’s emptiness (his Mormon faith might be more of an issue than the Mayor’s Jewish background) or Fred Thompson’s lack of experience in managing a corner grocery store, let alone the largest bureaucracy in the world.
To run as an Independent, Bloomberg would have to depend on support from the likes of Unity08, which is planning online voting to pick their candidate, not too promising for someone who wants to win not to run a feel-good campaign like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot.
There is precedent for party-switching by New York Mayors. John Lindsay was elected as a Republican in 1965, turned Democrat in 1971 and ran for President in his new party’s primaries a year later. He failed, but Bloomberg has much more going for him.
Last month, while being honored as one of Time’s 100 most influential people, the Mayor paid warm tribute to Red Auerbach, the legendary coach of the Boston Celtics, for knowing how to win with honest effort and without “trash talk.”
He was obviously thinking about more than basketball.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Democratic Disarray
It takes a certain kind of brilliance for Senate Democrats to make a big effort to get a non-binding vote on the popularity of Alberto Gonzales, lose it and get plausibly accused of playing partisan politics by the likes of Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell.
If competence is going to be a major issue in ’08, no one will point to today as a shining example for those who want to rescue us from the Bush era. Three of the Senate Democrats running for President did not even bother to show up.
Buried deep in the New York Times account of the fiasco is the real issue involved:
“The Senate-led effort to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, about their role in the dismissals has been stalled by disagreements between White House and the Senate judiciary panel. So far, the committee has authorized but has not issued subpoenas to force their appearance.”
Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and their compatriots had better stop taking victory laps for their election win last fall and get to the real business of stopping the war, exposing corruption instead of playing games over it and, if they have any time left over, passing a little legislation. The '08 clock is ticking for them, too.
If competence is going to be a major issue in ’08, no one will point to today as a shining example for those who want to rescue us from the Bush era. Three of the Senate Democrats running for President did not even bother to show up.
Buried deep in the New York Times account of the fiasco is the real issue involved:
“The Senate-led effort to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, about their role in the dismissals has been stalled by disagreements between White House and the Senate judiciary panel. So far, the committee has authorized but has not issued subpoenas to force their appearance.”
Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and their compatriots had better stop taking victory laps for their election win last fall and get to the real business of stopping the war, exposing corruption instead of playing games over it and, if they have any time left over, passing a little legislation. The '08 clock is ticking for them, too.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Safer Since 9/11? Wrong Question
It came up in the debate on Sunday and hasn’t gone away. The fact that the question is unanswerable is no impediment to Democratic candidates making it a campaign issue that will eventually hurt them all and help Republicans who have fewer scruples about using fear as a political weapon.
Hillary Clinton made the mistake of saying, “I believe we are safer than we were” to John Edwards’ bumper-sticker assertion that “the war on terror is a bumper-sticker slogan.”
Now the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns are issuing position papers to one-up one another on a question the answer to which we have no way of knowing.
Safer how? There have been no domestic attacks since 9/11, but the various plots that have been publicized as thwarted have a whiff of self-serving inflation to them. (If this dire subject has any laughs in it, Nora Ephron found them the other day on the Huffington Post.)
After the alleged scheme to blow up fuel lines at JFK airport last week, Mayor Mike Bloomberg urged New Yorkers to relax. “You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he said. But then Bloomberg isn’t running for President--yet.
What we do know is that most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations have not been implemented, and books like Stephen Flynn’s “The Edge of Disaster” have been sounding the alarm about what can reasonably be done to make us safer. But how much safer is unknowable. The hard truth is that we have to live with an anxiety that did not exist before 9/11.
Taking political cheap shots on our very survival is the height of venality. If the candidates have specific workable proposals to enhance our safety, let’s hear them. Otherwise stop saying “Boo” to American voters. George Bush has been doing that for too long.
Hillary Clinton made the mistake of saying, “I believe we are safer than we were” to John Edwards’ bumper-sticker assertion that “the war on terror is a bumper-sticker slogan.”
Now the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns are issuing position papers to one-up one another on a question the answer to which we have no way of knowing.
Safer how? There have been no domestic attacks since 9/11, but the various plots that have been publicized as thwarted have a whiff of self-serving inflation to them. (If this dire subject has any laughs in it, Nora Ephron found them the other day on the Huffington Post.)
After the alleged scheme to blow up fuel lines at JFK airport last week, Mayor Mike Bloomberg urged New Yorkers to relax. “You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he said. But then Bloomberg isn’t running for President--yet.
What we do know is that most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations have not been implemented, and books like Stephen Flynn’s “The Edge of Disaster” have been sounding the alarm about what can reasonably be done to make us safer. But how much safer is unknowable. The hard truth is that we have to live with an anxiety that did not exist before 9/11.
Taking political cheap shots on our very survival is the height of venality. If the candidates have specific workable proposals to enhance our safety, let’s hear them. Otherwise stop saying “Boo” to American voters. George Bush has been doing that for too long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)