- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,447
- 741
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC, Western United FC
It also doesn't require a brain to send that off for print.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?
- Thread starter GuruJane
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It also doesn't require a brain to send that off for print.
- Aug 1, 2002
- 22,826
- 10,715
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- NMFC
Welcome to GuruJane world!!!!!
Every Democrat a Republican/ every Labor politician a Liberal
An article in The Hill, describing how profoundly House Democrats will miss the leadership of Rahm Emanuel, recounts this episode, involving the vote by Democratic Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota in favor of the dreadful Protect America Act in August of last year (h/t Matt Stoller):
This little vignette provides a very vivid and crystallizing illustration of how Congressional Democratic leaders think and behave. They consider it a good thing -- not a bad thing -- when they anger their own base. They're thrilled when they get accused -- accurately -- of acting like Republicans and supporting right-wing measures, particularly on national security and "terrorism" issues. They consider it a benefit -- an incentive -- when they are attacked for embracing Republican political policies and violating the principles of their own base.
This is undoubtedly the rationale which, at least in part, led to Obama's own reversal on FISA: namely, it was considered a good thing that he infuriated his core supporters and was accused of supporting definitively Bush/Cheney terrorism policies because -- in the words of his new Chief of Staff -- "it makes you look bipartisan." See here for the fruits of this thinking.
Tomorrow, the Senate will vote in secret on whether to deny Joe Lieberman the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Is the anger that will be generated among liberals if Lieberman continues in that position something that Senate Democrats want to avoid or want to provoke? One wonders how many similar celebrations Congressional Democrats had all those times when they enabled one radical Bush policy after the next and were excoriated by their own voters.
UPDATE: Numerous sources -- including this one and this one -- are now reporting that the Senate Democratic caucus has reached a deal with Joe Lieberman, and he will retain his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. The deal will be ratified in a vote tomorrow morning (and will entail his losing a totally meaningless subcommittee chair).
Nobody who has watched Congressional Democrats over the last many years could possibly have expected any other outcome. This is who they are and what they do. The silver lining is that it will once again remind people, still euphoric over the election results, of this reality.
And as the anger pours forth from people who raise money for Democrats and expended huge amounts of time and effort to elect Barack Obama, the more vindicated Senate Democrats will feel in what they just did. That's how they look centrist and bipartisan -- by infuriating their supporters, the perceived "Left." They don't believe in Sister Souljah moments; they believe in Sister Souljahism as an operating principle, a way of life. Ask Tim Walz.
Every Democrat a Republican/ every Labor politician a Liberal
An article in The Hill, describing how profoundly House Democrats will miss the leadership of Rahm Emanuel, recounts this episode, involving the vote by Democratic Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota in favor of the dreadful Protect America Act in August of last year (h/t Matt Stoller):
Members said [Emanuel] had a phenomenal knowledge of their districts, and he kept up to date well after the campaign ended. Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) said one of his supporters wrote a letter to the editor of a small paper in his district, complaining about his vote on a rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Walz mentioned the letter to the editor to Emanuel on the floor and was stunned by his response.
“You mean the one about how you should caucus with the Republicans?” Emanuel shot back. “That’s a good letter. Makes you look bipartisan.”
To this day, Walz is still amazed. “He had read the letter.”
When I first read this passage, I mistakenly thought that was Walz was "stunned" by Emanuel's response because Emanuel was telling him that it is a good thing to infuriate your own supporters by voting in favor of a definitively Republican bill to massively expand the surveillance state at George Bush's behest. No -- that point was totally unremarkable for Walz and didn't register with him at all. Walz was merely "stunned" as in "impressed" -- impressed with Emanuel's political acumen at having read and remembered that letter.Walz mentioned the letter to the editor to Emanuel on the floor and was stunned by his response.
“You mean the one about how you should caucus with the Republicans?” Emanuel shot back. “That’s a good letter. Makes you look bipartisan.”
To this day, Walz is still amazed. “He had read the letter.”
This little vignette provides a very vivid and crystallizing illustration of how Congressional Democratic leaders think and behave. They consider it a good thing -- not a bad thing -- when they anger their own base. They're thrilled when they get accused -- accurately -- of acting like Republicans and supporting right-wing measures, particularly on national security and "terrorism" issues. They consider it a benefit -- an incentive -- when they are attacked for embracing Republican political policies and violating the principles of their own base.
This is undoubtedly the rationale which, at least in part, led to Obama's own reversal on FISA: namely, it was considered a good thing that he infuriated his core supporters and was accused of supporting definitively Bush/Cheney terrorism policies because -- in the words of his new Chief of Staff -- "it makes you look bipartisan." See here for the fruits of this thinking.
Tomorrow, the Senate will vote in secret on whether to deny Joe Lieberman the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Is the anger that will be generated among liberals if Lieberman continues in that position something that Senate Democrats want to avoid or want to provoke? One wonders how many similar celebrations Congressional Democrats had all those times when they enabled one radical Bush policy after the next and were excoriated by their own voters.
UPDATE: Numerous sources -- including this one and this one -- are now reporting that the Senate Democratic caucus has reached a deal with Joe Lieberman, and he will retain his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. The deal will be ratified in a vote tomorrow morning (and will entail his losing a totally meaningless subcommittee chair).
Nobody who has watched Congressional Democrats over the last many years could possibly have expected any other outcome. This is who they are and what they do. The silver lining is that it will once again remind people, still euphoric over the election results, of this reality.
And as the anger pours forth from people who raise money for Democrats and expended huge amounts of time and effort to elect Barack Obama, the more vindicated Senate Democrats will feel in what they just did. That's how they look centrist and bipartisan -- by infuriating their supporters, the perceived "Left." They don't believe in Sister Souljah moments; they believe in Sister Souljahism as an operating principle, a way of life. Ask Tim Walz.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Prepare to be underwhelmed for the next 4 years, mate.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Hehe,Nah,I'm pretty happy go lucky as a rule.
Just skeptical of new western leaders promising 'change'
You're not just a teeensy bit underwhelmed by Kevvy thus far--why should Obama be any different?
- Thread starter
- #33
Why on earth would Obama be picking HC as SOS if he hadn't seen an opportunity/necessity to build on Condi Rice diplomatic achievements and the Bush agenda and toughen it up if anything? It simply doesn't make sense unless one accepts that Obama is an idiot? If he was going to change course, he would have picked a professional like Holbrooke, who's been his long time advisor.
Appointing Clinton is the classic good cop/bad cop routine - Obama to present the smiling face while Clinton cracks nuts.
But then I suppose we have to entertain the possibility that Obama really is an idiot, as well as being inexperienced?
Appointing Clinton is the classic good cop/bad cop routine - Obama to present the smiling face while Clinton cracks nuts.
But then I suppose we have to entertain the possibility that Obama really is an idiot, as well as being inexperienced?
Galactic
Norm Smith Medallist
Looks like the clintons won the white house after all.
- Thread starter
- #35
Newsweek.
more change and hope ... more hope and change?
or more hope of less change?
more change and hope ... more hope and change?
or more hope of less change?
- Aug 1, 2002
- 22,826
- 10,715
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- NMFC
I will do what I always do retreat to the perfect world of theory. Great book which is a truly unique history of philosophy: Susan Neiman - Evil in Modern Thought - an alternative history of philosophy - you should give it a read my libertarian brother
As for you Northbhoy my grammatically correct friend - nothing wrong with cynicism unless it is the cynicism which stems from the blighted sepulchre of empty nest baby boomer appeasement
If people are expecting Obama to be a paragon of virtue in all areas, of course they're going to be disappointed. In fact, there are some on this board who will hold Obama to an absurdly high standard and then strut around feeling vindicated when he inevitably doesn't measure up. I mean, even the greatest US presidents have some serious blots on their copybooks -- if you're willing to dwell on those errors to the exclusion of everything else, you can always find a way to feel cynical about them and the institutions and processes of which they're a part.
The question is not whether Obama will disappoint in some areas and over some issues: that's a foregone conclusion. The real question is how often and how egregiously he'll disappoint, and conversely how often and how worthily he'll fulfill the high hopes so many have.
The question is not whether Obama will disappoint in some areas and over some issues: that's a foregone conclusion. The real question is how often and how egregiously he'll disappoint, and conversely how often and how worthily he'll fulfill the high hopes so many have.
asanque
Premium Platinum
No US president, vice president, secretary of state and attorney general could be worse then Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gonzalez.
You could replace them with the Marx brothers and they'd still be far superior.
In fact compared to the above, my standards are absymally low.
As long as Obama sits on his chair all day and flicks rubber bands at his interns and doesn't adopt one single Bush policy that would be great.
Throwing the insane neocons and their rabid supporters into the now defunct Gitmo would be nice, but we can leave it there.
You could replace them with the Marx brothers and they'd still be far superior.
In fact compared to the above, my standards are absymally low.
As long as Obama sits on his chair all day and flicks rubber bands at his interns and doesn't adopt one single Bush policy that would be great.
Throwing the insane neocons and their rabid supporters into the now defunct Gitmo would be nice, but we can leave it there.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
The reviews look good(although I see she studied under Rawls.)
It's a free ebook so must be reasonably important--hopefully I can get around to it at some stage.
This is precisely what happened in the UK when Blair replaced a hopeless Tory govt mired in numerous scandals.
His biggest critics could be found amongst heartbroken former worshippers.
Its like going to a Richmond game when the Tigers are getting belted.
- Nov 28, 2005
- 6,234
- 121
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Australia
Of course you would be. Hardly a surprise. You've shown your obvious issues regarding women for months.
The Glamour Woman of the Year has been a wonderful Senator, and I'm sure she'd be just as great as SecState if she wants it. She would be yet another member of the Clinton Administration to be appointed by Obama as well, so maybe the 'change' in Washington he was sprouting was just a line. Maybe he realises that with his lack of experience, he needs those involved with a successful administration on board.
All of these appointments were after Obama said the Republicans have been the Party of ideas for the past fifteen years (which included seven years of Bush, and eight years of when Clinton was President when the Republicans weren't doing anything), and that Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory in America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and that Bill Clinton did not as well. Clinton must have done something right if he wants so many members of his administration with him.
Wonderful?
Could you please give us a brief run down on her achievements. I seem to have missed them.
- Aug 1, 2002
- 22,826
- 10,715
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- NMFC
- Aug 1, 2002
- 22,826
- 10,715
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- NMFC
More good news for Guru
Obama rewards a traitor
Tuesday Nov. 18, 2008 08:15 EST
Has there been too much bipartisanship or too little?
(updated below - Update II)
As Senate Democrats this morning prepare to reward Joe Lieberman with the powerful Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, the most commonly recited claim -- both with regard to the Lieberman issue and Washington more generally -- is that Barack Obama's campaign to "change" Washington requires, first and foremost, an end to partisan bickering and a renewal of bipartisanship. As but one of countless examples, Steny Hoyer told The Hill yesterday "that bipartisanship will be a priority" and the 33 new Democratic members of Congress "were elected on promises of bipartisanship." In The Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein complains about "escalating partisan conflict" and "hyper-partisanship" and claims that "American politics has been polarized as sharply as at any point in the past century."
Whatever else one might want to say about "bipartisanship," there is nothing new about it. By definition, it does not remotely constitute "change." To the contrary, the last eight years have been defined, more than anything else, by overarching bipartisan cooperation and consensus.
Where is the evidence of the supposed partisan wrangling that we hear so much about? Just examine the question dispassionately. Look at every major Bush initiative, every controversial signature Bush policy over the last eight years, and one finds virtually nothing but massive bipartisan support for them -- the Patriot Act (original enactment and its renewal); the invasion of Afghanistan; the attack on, and ongoing occupation of, Iraq; the Military Commissions Act (authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, abolishing habeas corpus, and immunizing war criminals); expansions of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity; declaring part of Iran's government to be "terrorists"; our one-sided policy toward Israel; the $700 billion bailout; The No Child Left Behind Act, "bankruptcy reform," and on and on.
Most of those were all enacted with virtually unanimous GOP support and substantial, sometimes overwhelming, Democratic support: the very definition of "bipartisanship." That's just a fact.
Moreover, Bush's appointments of judges were barely ever impeded, resulting in a radical transformation of the federal courts. Other than John Bolton and Steven Bradbury, not a single significant Bush nominee was blocked. Those who implemented Bush's NSA program (Michael Hayden) and authorized his torture program (Alberto Gonzales) were confirmed for promotions. The Bush administration committed war crimes, broke long-standing surveillance laws, politicized prosecutions, and explicitly claimed the right to break our laws, yet Congress did nothing about any of that except to authorize most of it, and investigated virtually none of it. With regard to many of those transgressions, key Democratic leaders were briefed at the time they were implemented and quietly acquiesced, did nothing to stop any of it. Both parties are in virtually unanimous agreement that our highest political leaders should be exempt from accountability under the rule of law even for the grave crimes that have been committed.
As The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin observed at the end of last year: "Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed." How much more harmonious -- "bipartisan" -- can the two parties get?
Over the last eight years, one can locate a couple of exceptions to this lockstep cooperation in the domestic policy realm, where Democrats managed to deny Bush's wishes -- the failure of Bush's Social Security privitization scheme and some isolated disputes over the magnitude of tax cuts. And there have been some Democratic initiatives -- SCHIPs funding and mandating more home-time for troops -- which were vetoed or filibustered. But one is very hard pressed to find any meaningful examples beyond those isolated cases. Indeed, the bulk of Bush's most substantial defeats -- immigration reform, Harriet Miers, the Dubai ports deal -- came as a result of opposition from the Right, not from Democrats.
Bipartisanship -- cooperation and agreement among the two parties -- is the standard operating practice of Washington, and it has been for many years. It's certainly been vastly more common than the "partisan gridlock" that conventional Beltway wisdom spouters relentlessly complain is plaguing our political process. There has been far more harmony and agreement among the two parties, particularly their leaders, than there has been acrimony and discord. I'm asking this literally: how would it have even been possible to have substantially more bipartisanship over the last eight years than we actually had?
Our political system is afflicted by many, many problems. A lack of bipartisanship hasn't been one of them. At least during the Bush era, the Beltway political establishment has been fueled by trans-partisan cooperation and internal allegiance far more than by any ideological differences, policy debates, or partisan warfare. Do the last eight years -- defined by George Bush's virtually unimpeded political agenda -- leave any doubt about that?
That's why the outcome of this Joe Lieberman "controversy" is anything but surprising. Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but "change." That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class.
UPDATE: Here is another intensely shared attribute by both parties: contempt for, and an insatiable desire to demonize, the so-called "Left." It's always a close competition among the two parties' leaderships to see which can do that more enthusiastically.
UPDATE II: The vote to keep Lieberman in his Chair was not even close -- 42-13. Both Lieberman and Howard Dean agree that it was Obama's desires here that were instrumental in the outcome. Of Obama, Dean said: "He called the shots, and that's fine." That bodes really well for Congressional independence. Key Obama allies in the Senate -- including Dodd, Durbin and Kerry -- supported Lieberman.
Senate Democrats believe it's important to reward someone with a powerful Chairmanship who has been a vehement supporter of George Bush, the war in Iraq, the full panoply of anti-constitutional abuses, and an amplifier of the most toxic right-wing toxic points. At the same time, they consider it a good thing to scorn their supporters on what they consider to be "the Left." For anyone willing to hear it, they've made as clear and resounding a statement -- again -- about who they are and who they do and don't listen to
Obama rewards a traitor
Tuesday Nov. 18, 2008 08:15 EST
Has there been too much bipartisanship or too little?
(updated below - Update II)
As Senate Democrats this morning prepare to reward Joe Lieberman with the powerful Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, the most commonly recited claim -- both with regard to the Lieberman issue and Washington more generally -- is that Barack Obama's campaign to "change" Washington requires, first and foremost, an end to partisan bickering and a renewal of bipartisanship. As but one of countless examples, Steny Hoyer told The Hill yesterday "that bipartisanship will be a priority" and the 33 new Democratic members of Congress "were elected on promises of bipartisanship." In The Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein complains about "escalating partisan conflict" and "hyper-partisanship" and claims that "American politics has been polarized as sharply as at any point in the past century."
Whatever else one might want to say about "bipartisanship," there is nothing new about it. By definition, it does not remotely constitute "change." To the contrary, the last eight years have been defined, more than anything else, by overarching bipartisan cooperation and consensus.
Where is the evidence of the supposed partisan wrangling that we hear so much about? Just examine the question dispassionately. Look at every major Bush initiative, every controversial signature Bush policy over the last eight years, and one finds virtually nothing but massive bipartisan support for them -- the Patriot Act (original enactment and its renewal); the invasion of Afghanistan; the attack on, and ongoing occupation of, Iraq; the Military Commissions Act (authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, abolishing habeas corpus, and immunizing war criminals); expansions of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity; declaring part of Iran's government to be "terrorists"; our one-sided policy toward Israel; the $700 billion bailout; The No Child Left Behind Act, "bankruptcy reform," and on and on.
Most of those were all enacted with virtually unanimous GOP support and substantial, sometimes overwhelming, Democratic support: the very definition of "bipartisanship." That's just a fact.
Moreover, Bush's appointments of judges were barely ever impeded, resulting in a radical transformation of the federal courts. Other than John Bolton and Steven Bradbury, not a single significant Bush nominee was blocked. Those who implemented Bush's NSA program (Michael Hayden) and authorized his torture program (Alberto Gonzales) were confirmed for promotions. The Bush administration committed war crimes, broke long-standing surveillance laws, politicized prosecutions, and explicitly claimed the right to break our laws, yet Congress did nothing about any of that except to authorize most of it, and investigated virtually none of it. With regard to many of those transgressions, key Democratic leaders were briefed at the time they were implemented and quietly acquiesced, did nothing to stop any of it. Both parties are in virtually unanimous agreement that our highest political leaders should be exempt from accountability under the rule of law even for the grave crimes that have been committed.
As The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin observed at the end of last year: "Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed." How much more harmonious -- "bipartisan" -- can the two parties get?
Over the last eight years, one can locate a couple of exceptions to this lockstep cooperation in the domestic policy realm, where Democrats managed to deny Bush's wishes -- the failure of Bush's Social Security privitization scheme and some isolated disputes over the magnitude of tax cuts. And there have been some Democratic initiatives -- SCHIPs funding and mandating more home-time for troops -- which were vetoed or filibustered. But one is very hard pressed to find any meaningful examples beyond those isolated cases. Indeed, the bulk of Bush's most substantial defeats -- immigration reform, Harriet Miers, the Dubai ports deal -- came as a result of opposition from the Right, not from Democrats.
Bipartisanship -- cooperation and agreement among the two parties -- is the standard operating practice of Washington, and it has been for many years. It's certainly been vastly more common than the "partisan gridlock" that conventional Beltway wisdom spouters relentlessly complain is plaguing our political process. There has been far more harmony and agreement among the two parties, particularly their leaders, than there has been acrimony and discord. I'm asking this literally: how would it have even been possible to have substantially more bipartisanship over the last eight years than we actually had?
Our political system is afflicted by many, many problems. A lack of bipartisanship hasn't been one of them. At least during the Bush era, the Beltway political establishment has been fueled by trans-partisan cooperation and internal allegiance far more than by any ideological differences, policy debates, or partisan warfare. Do the last eight years -- defined by George Bush's virtually unimpeded political agenda -- leave any doubt about that?
That's why the outcome of this Joe Lieberman "controversy" is anything but surprising. Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but "change." That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class.
UPDATE: Here is another intensely shared attribute by both parties: contempt for, and an insatiable desire to demonize, the so-called "Left." It's always a close competition among the two parties' leaderships to see which can do that more enthusiastically.
UPDATE II: The vote to keep Lieberman in his Chair was not even close -- 42-13. Both Lieberman and Howard Dean agree that it was Obama's desires here that were instrumental in the outcome. Of Obama, Dean said: "He called the shots, and that's fine." That bodes really well for Congressional independence. Key Obama allies in the Senate -- including Dodd, Durbin and Kerry -- supported Lieberman.
Senate Democrats believe it's important to reward someone with a powerful Chairmanship who has been a vehement supporter of George Bush, the war in Iraq, the full panoply of anti-constitutional abuses, and an amplifier of the most toxic right-wing toxic points. At the same time, they consider it a good thing to scorn their supporters on what they consider to be "the Left." For anyone willing to hear it, they've made as clear and resounding a statement -- again -- about who they are and who they do and don't listen to
That's silly. Hillary's obviously a very capable woman. My point is that I would have expected Obama to choose someone with whom he hadn't been publicly arguing over Iraq and over whether or not there should be preconditions when meeting heads of hostile states, etc.
- Thread starter
- #46
Of course it might be as simple as Obama's deep seated psychological need for tough mommas.
- Thread starter
- #47
btw - when's its 3 AM in the White House isn't it often the SecStat who is making the call?
asanque
Premium Platinum
Re: More good news for Guru
For a second I thought the headline of that article was about Hillary
Edit: Although perhaps Obama is going by the axiom to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
To be fair to Hillary, unlike Lieberman and unlike some of her deluded supporters, she did throw her support behind Obama.
For a second I thought the headline of that article was about Hillary
Edit: Although perhaps Obama is going by the axiom to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
To be fair to Hillary, unlike Lieberman and unlike some of her deluded supporters, she did throw her support behind Obama.
Dixie Flatline
Moderator
- Jun 3, 2005
- 35,851
- 36,508
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cartagena C.F., NYJ, A's
- Moderator
- #49
Re: More good news for Guru
Tom Daschle to be Secretary of Health and Human Services in an Obama administration. Bill Clinton has apparently agreed to certain restrictions on his own activities that would bring Sen. Hillary Clinton into conflict if she is appointed SecState. Eric Holder will be Obama's Attorney-General.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20transition.html?hp
Tom Daschle to be Secretary of Health and Human Services in an Obama administration. Bill Clinton has apparently agreed to certain restrictions on his own activities that would bring Sen. Hillary Clinton into conflict if she is appointed SecState. Eric Holder will be Obama's Attorney-General.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20transition.html?hp
- Thread starter
- #50
Re: More good news for Guru
WIKI:
Even more hope of less change. Getting more reassuring by the day.
WIKI:
Even more hope of less change. Getting more reassuring by the day.
Similar threads
