New Developments III
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Let's hope so. At first, I thought for sure the RNC pressured her to step out of the race and promised her a better position elsewhere. But now, I think she just wants to see the Republican lose all the moderate voters she was courting.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
A few comments on this Tuesday's US elections (which, whatever the outcome, will be massively over-interpreted by most of the press as Doom For Obama and the Big GOP Comeback):
Here in NY, Bloomberg will roll to re-election despite many being pissed off he blithely disregarded the term limits rule. I'll vote against him -- for that, and because he began airing ads accusing his opponent of running a negative campaign before the cash-starved Thompson had put a single spot on TV -- but I have no illusions (or rooting interest, really) that he'll lose.
Across the river, Corzine becomes the first incumbent governor to face Recession Voters, and doing it as a representative of Goldman Sachs when that company is viewed as a den of thieves. The GOP for once resisted the impulse to nominate an unelectably-far-right candidate, but, even so, with the help of a third party entity, the state's party demographics have pulled Corzine back into a race that seemed long-gone. Toss-up.
Down in VA, Creigh Deeds has done that stupid thing Democratic moderates always convince themselves is smart: run against their party's DC establishment, specifically by saying he would opt out of the public option (the one that has roughly 60% approval in the state). This tactic has never won over right-leaning voters, but always depresses Democratic base turnout. Well played, sir. Though it may be moot in the end: since the early 70s, VA voters have always elected a governor from the party that lost the previous year's presidential election. McDonnell by a solid margin.
But the most fun has been had in NY's 23rd Congressional District, a special election held because the GOP Rep has moved on to work for the Obama administration. This is a district, Lawrence O'Donnell informs me, that FDR never carried; that Pat Moynihan lost while racking up 67% statewide totals. It shouldn't be remotely competitive -- and may not be, after today's development. But that's not the end of the story.
What's happened (for those not watching): the party faithful nominated a pro-choice, vaguely stimulus-supporting GOP moderate, the sort that until recently had held a bunch of NY upstate seats. And the wingnut purity brigade went crazy, labelling her a RINO (Republican in name only). They threw their support behind a far-right-er who's never lived in the district (who, by editorial board agreement, doesn't know squat about the district), and, despite official party muscle going to the moderate, got big names like Palin and Fred Thompson to come in and endorse him. Polls have been showing the GOPer and this conservative interloper splitting the vote enough that the hapless Dem has actually been leading.
So, today, the official GOP candidate actually "released her supporters" -- though she'll stay on the ballot, she's conceding she can't win the race. This ought to mean the rightie, Hoffman, wins, unless there were serious pro-choicers among the woman (with an unspellable name)'s support. The Malkin crowd is flashing Mission Accomplished already.
But even if this Hoffman does win, it's hard to see this not being disastrous for the GOP over the rest of the country. Crist in FL, Kirk in IL and Castle in DEL are three guys with similar candidate profiles to the deposed nominee -- guys who were expected to run formidable races in purple or blue stae Senate races next year. Now you have to question if they can survive primary races, or if they'll move so far right in those primary heats they lose their general election appeal.
This could obviously be hyperbole, but it's not beyond possibility that, for the GOP, this little race turns out to be what broke their party for a generation.
Here in NY, Bloomberg will roll to re-election despite many being pissed off he blithely disregarded the term limits rule. I'll vote against him -- for that, and because he began airing ads accusing his opponent of running a negative campaign before the cash-starved Thompson had put a single spot on TV -- but I have no illusions (or rooting interest, really) that he'll lose.
Across the river, Corzine becomes the first incumbent governor to face Recession Voters, and doing it as a representative of Goldman Sachs when that company is viewed as a den of thieves. The GOP for once resisted the impulse to nominate an unelectably-far-right candidate, but, even so, with the help of a third party entity, the state's party demographics have pulled Corzine back into a race that seemed long-gone. Toss-up.
Down in VA, Creigh Deeds has done that stupid thing Democratic moderates always convince themselves is smart: run against their party's DC establishment, specifically by saying he would opt out of the public option (the one that has roughly 60% approval in the state). This tactic has never won over right-leaning voters, but always depresses Democratic base turnout. Well played, sir. Though it may be moot in the end: since the early 70s, VA voters have always elected a governor from the party that lost the previous year's presidential election. McDonnell by a solid margin.
But the most fun has been had in NY's 23rd Congressional District, a special election held because the GOP Rep has moved on to work for the Obama administration. This is a district, Lawrence O'Donnell informs me, that FDR never carried; that Pat Moynihan lost while racking up 67% statewide totals. It shouldn't be remotely competitive -- and may not be, after today's development. But that's not the end of the story.
What's happened (for those not watching): the party faithful nominated a pro-choice, vaguely stimulus-supporting GOP moderate, the sort that until recently had held a bunch of NY upstate seats. And the wingnut purity brigade went crazy, labelling her a RINO (Republican in name only). They threw their support behind a far-right-er who's never lived in the district (who, by editorial board agreement, doesn't know squat about the district), and, despite official party muscle going to the moderate, got big names like Palin and Fred Thompson to come in and endorse him. Polls have been showing the GOPer and this conservative interloper splitting the vote enough that the hapless Dem has actually been leading.
So, today, the official GOP candidate actually "released her supporters" -- though she'll stay on the ballot, she's conceding she can't win the race. This ought to mean the rightie, Hoffman, wins, unless there were serious pro-choicers among the woman (with an unspellable name)'s support. The Malkin crowd is flashing Mission Accomplished already.
But even if this Hoffman does win, it's hard to see this not being disastrous for the GOP over the rest of the country. Crist in FL, Kirk in IL and Castle in DEL are three guys with similar candidate profiles to the deposed nominee -- guys who were expected to run formidable races in purple or blue stae Senate races next year. Now you have to question if they can survive primary races, or if they'll move so far right in those primary heats they lose their general election appeal.
This could obviously be hyperbole, but it's not beyond possibility that, for the GOP, this little race turns out to be what broke their party for a generation.
Any comments on the Copenhagen environmental treaty?
Here are a few articles from The Independent
*********************************
Rainforest treaty 'fatally flawed'
Climate summit loophole lets palm oil producers cull vital wilderness
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Monday, 26 October 2009
A vital safeguard to protect the world's rainforests from being cut down has been dropped from a global deforestation treaty due to be signed at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
Under proposals due to be ratified at the summit, countries which cut down rainforests and convert them to plantations of trees such as oil palms would still be able to classify the result as forest and could receive millions of dollars meant for preserving them. An earlier version of the text ruled out such a conversion but has been deleted, and the EU delegation – headed by Britain – has blocked its reinsertion.
Environmentalists say plantations are in no way a substitute for the lost natural forest in terms of wildlife, water production or, crucially, as a store of the carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere when forests are destroyed and intensifies climate change.
Now they are calling on Britain to take a lead in restoring the anti-plantations safeguard at the final negotiating session in a week's time, saying that otherwise the agreement – which seeks to halve global deforestation rates by 2020 – will be fatally flawed.
"It is a priority for the safeguard to be reinserted, or otherwise we will have a situation where countries are paid for converting their natural forests into palm plantations," said Emily Brickell, the climate and forests officer for the Worldwide Find for Nature (WWF-UK).
"If this is not changed, the agreement will be part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it will allow things to carry on as they are now and we will continue to see the loss of natural rainforest," added Simon Counsell, the executive director of the Rainforest Foundation.
The key piece of text which was lost said that parties to the treaty "shall protect biological diversity, including safeguards against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations".
It was deleted in closed negotiations but some observers think it was done at the instigation of African rainforest countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Cameroon, while other states including Indonesia and Malaysia are believed to have supported it. Both are heavily involved in the oil palm industry, which is a major driver of deforestation because palm oil is used to make biofuels.
A move to reinsert the clause was blocked at the last talks in Bangkok by British officials, who feared that the gains of the week's negotiations (the text was reduced from 19 pages to nine) would be lost if the text were reopened. Green campaigners accept that this was a matter of procedure but think it will have been a disastrously bad call if officials do not move swiftly to replace the lost text at the final negotiations in Barcelona, beginning a week today.
"The EU has to make sure the wording goes back in," said Charlie Kronik, of Greenpeace. "It's absolutely essential, otherwise it leaves open the possibility of removing intact, high-value forests and replacing them with oil palms as party of the treaty."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "The UK is pushing hard for the strongest possible deal to stop deforestation and that includes wanting specific language in the UN text on the protection of natural forests."
The proposed forest pact, which could be one of the most positive outcomes of the Copenhagen summit, addresses the fact that deforestation, mostly in Central and South America, Africa and Asia, now produces nearly 20 per cent of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – more than from all the world's transport. Many policymakers consider that the key goal of limiting global warming to no more than C above the pre-industrial level will be unattainable unless the problem of deforestation emissions is tackled. The issue, which has become known in official jargon as Redd (reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries), now has a section to itself in the proposed Copenhagen accord.
Nearly 200 countries will meet in December to try to frame a new treaty that would put the world on a path towards cutting CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Scientists say this is the very minimum that can be done to keep temperature rises below C, which is regarded as the threshold of climate change that presents a real threat to humans society. Last week, British government scientists said a potentially disastrous rise of 4C by 2060 was on the cards if emissions continued to rise at their present rate.
The Copenhagen accord, if signed, will replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol. A deal will depend on developing nations such as China and India cutting pollution because their growing economies will be responsible for 90 per cent of CO2 emissions growth in the future.
**********************************************
Illegal logging responsible for loss of 10 million hectares in Indonesia
By Kathy Marks, Asia-Pacific Correspondent
Monday, 26 October 2009
Lush tropical rainforest once covered almost all of Indonesia's 17,000 islands between the Indian and Pacific oceans. And just half a century ago, 80 per cent remained. But since then, rampant logging and burning has destroyed nearly half that cover, and made the country the world's third largest emitter of greenhouses gases after the US and China.
Indonesia still has one-tenth of the world's remaining rainforests, a treasure trove of rare plant and animal species, including critically endangered tigers, elephants and orang-utans. However, it is destroying its forests faster than any other country, according to the Guinness Book of Records, with an average two million hectares disappearing every year, double the annual loss in the 1980s.
It is that frenzied rate of deforestation that has propelled Indonesia, home to 237 million people, into its top-three spot in the global league table of climate change villains. According to a government report released last month, the destruction of forests and carbon-rich peatlands accounts for 80 per cent of the 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted in the country annually.
The situation is partly a legacy of the 32-year rule of the dictator Suharto, during which Indonesia's forests were regarded purely as a source of revenue to be exploited for economic gain. Suharto, who stepped down in 1998, handed out logging concessions covering more than half the total forest area, many of them to his relatives and political allies.
Although the current Indonesian government, under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is committed to reducing deforestation and CO2 emissions, not much has changed on the ground. Poor land management is compounded by lawlessness and corruption, and illegal logging is widespread. According to one official estimate, the latter is responsible for the loss of 10 million hectares of forest.
Legal logging, too, is conducted at unsustainable levels, thanks to soaring demand from a rapidly expanding pulp and paper industry, in a country struggling with high levels of poverty.
The recent government report forecast that carbon emissions, which have risen from 1.6 billion tons in 1990, will increase to 3.6 billion by 2030, a leap of 57 per cent from today's level. The main reason is logging and clearing of forests for agriculture and industrial plantations, including oil palms. The government granted permission last year for two million hectares of peatland to be cleared for oil palms.
The rapid spread of oil palm plantations, particularly on Sumatra and Borneo islands, is threatening the orang-utan's forest habitat and hastening its extinction, according to conservationists.
Clearing land releases into the atmosphere the carbon stored in trees and below ground, either during burning or when the timber decomposes. Forest fires – regarded as a cheap and easy way of clearing forest – are deliberately lit by farmers as well as timber and oil palm plantation owners, and occur regularly on Sumatra and Borneo during the dry season.
Indonesia supports the UN's Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) initiative, welcoming the idea of being paid to conserve its forests. However, some observers question whether the carbon credits it would receive will be priced high enough to make the scheme worthwhile.
At present, Indonesia accounts for 8 per cent of global carbon emissions, although the archipelago represents barely 1 per cent of the world's landmass. It still has the third largest tracts of tropical rainforest, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite losing one-quarter of its forest cover between 1990 and 2005.
Here are a few articles from The Independent
*********************************
Rainforest treaty 'fatally flawed'
Climate summit loophole lets palm oil producers cull vital wilderness
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Monday, 26 October 2009
A vital safeguard to protect the world's rainforests from being cut down has been dropped from a global deforestation treaty due to be signed at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
Under proposals due to be ratified at the summit, countries which cut down rainforests and convert them to plantations of trees such as oil palms would still be able to classify the result as forest and could receive millions of dollars meant for preserving them. An earlier version of the text ruled out such a conversion but has been deleted, and the EU delegation – headed by Britain – has blocked its reinsertion.
Environmentalists say plantations are in no way a substitute for the lost natural forest in terms of wildlife, water production or, crucially, as a store of the carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere when forests are destroyed and intensifies climate change.
Now they are calling on Britain to take a lead in restoring the anti-plantations safeguard at the final negotiating session in a week's time, saying that otherwise the agreement – which seeks to halve global deforestation rates by 2020 – will be fatally flawed.
"It is a priority for the safeguard to be reinserted, or otherwise we will have a situation where countries are paid for converting their natural forests into palm plantations," said Emily Brickell, the climate and forests officer for the Worldwide Find for Nature (WWF-UK).
"If this is not changed, the agreement will be part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it will allow things to carry on as they are now and we will continue to see the loss of natural rainforest," added Simon Counsell, the executive director of the Rainforest Foundation.
The key piece of text which was lost said that parties to the treaty "shall protect biological diversity, including safeguards against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations".
It was deleted in closed negotiations but some observers think it was done at the instigation of African rainforest countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Cameroon, while other states including Indonesia and Malaysia are believed to have supported it. Both are heavily involved in the oil palm industry, which is a major driver of deforestation because palm oil is used to make biofuels.
A move to reinsert the clause was blocked at the last talks in Bangkok by British officials, who feared that the gains of the week's negotiations (the text was reduced from 19 pages to nine) would be lost if the text were reopened. Green campaigners accept that this was a matter of procedure but think it will have been a disastrously bad call if officials do not move swiftly to replace the lost text at the final negotiations in Barcelona, beginning a week today.
"The EU has to make sure the wording goes back in," said Charlie Kronik, of Greenpeace. "It's absolutely essential, otherwise it leaves open the possibility of removing intact, high-value forests and replacing them with oil palms as party of the treaty."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "The UK is pushing hard for the strongest possible deal to stop deforestation and that includes wanting specific language in the UN text on the protection of natural forests."
The proposed forest pact, which could be one of the most positive outcomes of the Copenhagen summit, addresses the fact that deforestation, mostly in Central and South America, Africa and Asia, now produces nearly 20 per cent of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – more than from all the world's transport. Many policymakers consider that the key goal of limiting global warming to no more than C above the pre-industrial level will be unattainable unless the problem of deforestation emissions is tackled. The issue, which has become known in official jargon as Redd (reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries), now has a section to itself in the proposed Copenhagen accord.
Nearly 200 countries will meet in December to try to frame a new treaty that would put the world on a path towards cutting CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Scientists say this is the very minimum that can be done to keep temperature rises below C, which is regarded as the threshold of climate change that presents a real threat to humans society. Last week, British government scientists said a potentially disastrous rise of 4C by 2060 was on the cards if emissions continued to rise at their present rate.
The Copenhagen accord, if signed, will replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol. A deal will depend on developing nations such as China and India cutting pollution because their growing economies will be responsible for 90 per cent of CO2 emissions growth in the future.
**********************************************
Illegal logging responsible for loss of 10 million hectares in Indonesia
By Kathy Marks, Asia-Pacific Correspondent
Monday, 26 October 2009
Lush tropical rainforest once covered almost all of Indonesia's 17,000 islands between the Indian and Pacific oceans. And just half a century ago, 80 per cent remained. But since then, rampant logging and burning has destroyed nearly half that cover, and made the country the world's third largest emitter of greenhouses gases after the US and China.
Indonesia still has one-tenth of the world's remaining rainforests, a treasure trove of rare plant and animal species, including critically endangered tigers, elephants and orang-utans. However, it is destroying its forests faster than any other country, according to the Guinness Book of Records, with an average two million hectares disappearing every year, double the annual loss in the 1980s.
It is that frenzied rate of deforestation that has propelled Indonesia, home to 237 million people, into its top-three spot in the global league table of climate change villains. According to a government report released last month, the destruction of forests and carbon-rich peatlands accounts for 80 per cent of the 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted in the country annually.
The situation is partly a legacy of the 32-year rule of the dictator Suharto, during which Indonesia's forests were regarded purely as a source of revenue to be exploited for economic gain. Suharto, who stepped down in 1998, handed out logging concessions covering more than half the total forest area, many of them to his relatives and political allies.
Although the current Indonesian government, under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is committed to reducing deforestation and CO2 emissions, not much has changed on the ground. Poor land management is compounded by lawlessness and corruption, and illegal logging is widespread. According to one official estimate, the latter is responsible for the loss of 10 million hectares of forest.
Legal logging, too, is conducted at unsustainable levels, thanks to soaring demand from a rapidly expanding pulp and paper industry, in a country struggling with high levels of poverty.
The recent government report forecast that carbon emissions, which have risen from 1.6 billion tons in 1990, will increase to 3.6 billion by 2030, a leap of 57 per cent from today's level. The main reason is logging and clearing of forests for agriculture and industrial plantations, including oil palms. The government granted permission last year for two million hectares of peatland to be cleared for oil palms.
The rapid spread of oil palm plantations, particularly on Sumatra and Borneo islands, is threatening the orang-utan's forest habitat and hastening its extinction, according to conservationists.
Clearing land releases into the atmosphere the carbon stored in trees and below ground, either during burning or when the timber decomposes. Forest fires – regarded as a cheap and easy way of clearing forest – are deliberately lit by farmers as well as timber and oil palm plantation owners, and occur regularly on Sumatra and Borneo during the dry season.
Indonesia supports the UN's Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) initiative, welcoming the idea of being paid to conserve its forests. However, some observers question whether the carbon credits it would receive will be priced high enough to make the scheme worthwhile.
At present, Indonesia accounts for 8 per cent of global carbon emissions, although the archipelago represents barely 1 per cent of the world's landmass. It still has the third largest tracts of tropical rainforest, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite losing one-quarter of its forest cover between 1990 and 2005.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Obama declares a national emergency over the Swine Flu outbreak
Is it a national emergency because of the flu itself, or because of the vaccine debacle?
Is it a national emergency because of the flu itself, or because of the vaccine debacle?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
I assume you all heard the news.
President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
I think it's premature, but all those that call Obama's selection "embarrasing" have obviously forgotten Henry Kissinger.
President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
I think it's premature, but all those that call Obama's selection "embarrasing" have obviously forgotten Henry Kissinger.
Kucinich: White House Afghanistan Charm Offensive Misplaced
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has been a leading advocate against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, today made the following statement after the Obama Administration invited Members of Congress to the White House to discuss options for Afghanistan one day after Administration officials indicated that withdrawal is not an option:
“This week marks eight years of a war that continues to take the lives of innocent civilians. The region is plagued with rising violence and ongoing corruption. Meanwhile, Americans and Afghans continue to die; just days ago we saw the most deadly attack on American troops in more than a year. Instead of discussing all of our options for Afghanistan, including an immediate withdrawal, the Administration is initiating a charm offensive with high level meetings at the White House, with the intention of shoring up sinking support for continuing the war in Afghanistan.
“Sending additional American service members to Afghanistan does not increase security and it is not an act of diplomacy. Sending additional troops sends one message: The U.S. is ramping up combat operations. This message only encourages the Taliban and other insurgent groups to do likewise. Congress must take control of this war by eliminating its funding and bringing our troops home,” said Kucinich.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=148620
Edited By Greg on 1254865245
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has been a leading advocate against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, today made the following statement after the Obama Administration invited Members of Congress to the White House to discuss options for Afghanistan one day after Administration officials indicated that withdrawal is not an option:
“This week marks eight years of a war that continues to take the lives of innocent civilians. The region is plagued with rising violence and ongoing corruption. Meanwhile, Americans and Afghans continue to die; just days ago we saw the most deadly attack on American troops in more than a year. Instead of discussing all of our options for Afghanistan, including an immediate withdrawal, the Administration is initiating a charm offensive with high level meetings at the White House, with the intention of shoring up sinking support for continuing the war in Afghanistan.
“Sending additional American service members to Afghanistan does not increase security and it is not an act of diplomacy. Sending additional troops sends one message: The U.S. is ramping up combat operations. This message only encourages the Taliban and other insurgent groups to do likewise. Congress must take control of this war by eliminating its funding and bringing our troops home,” said Kucinich.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=148620
Edited By Greg on 1254865245
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
It was a great speech in every way. We'll see if does anything to change people's minds. However, I think in the long run Obama will get everything he's asking for except the public option.
I think the opening up of insurance across state lines alone will go a long way to increasing competition and lowering costs without it, at least in the short term until insurance companies find new ways to increase their profits.
The biggest bugaboo is still going to be pre-existing conditions. Yes, they can make it illegal for insurance companies to deny people with pre-existing conditions, but I haven't heard anything about preventing them from charging higher rates for people who sign up with conditions that require a lot of care.
In the case of people who can afford insurance but chose not to have it until they need it, this is probably fair, but what about people who've paid for insurance coverage all their working lives who move from a state where they have HMO coverage to a state that doesn't have the same HMO and are forced, even under the presumed new portability laws, to apply for new insurance? It's a loophole that I hope is closed.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1252606032
I think the opening up of insurance across state lines alone will go a long way to increasing competition and lowering costs without it, at least in the short term until insurance companies find new ways to increase their profits.
The biggest bugaboo is still going to be pre-existing conditions. Yes, they can make it illegal for insurance companies to deny people with pre-existing conditions, but I haven't heard anything about preventing them from charging higher rates for people who sign up with conditions that require a lot of care.
In the case of people who can afford insurance but chose not to have it until they need it, this is probably fair, but what about people who've paid for insurance coverage all their working lives who move from a state where they have HMO coverage to a state that doesn't have the same HMO and are forced, even under the presumed new portability laws, to apply for new insurance? It's a loophole that I hope is closed.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1252606032
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
On the whole, last night was a pretty good night for bi-racial kids from the midwest -- one gave a widely-hailed speech, another matched a team record held by a legend. And they were even deferential to one another: Jeter politely went o-for his third at bat so his Gehrig-tying hit didn't come till Barack was finished speaking. Both woke up ths morning in better position than they began yesterday.
Maybe the biggest point of comparison between the two is the class they exude. Both are soft-spoken and respectful. For Jeter, this has led to baseball-wide admiration...even members of the opposition Rays took to the top steps of the dugout last night to salute his achievement. Obama has no such luck: his GOP opponents sat on their hands most of the night, and one SC member showed a shocking lack of decorum by (falsely) shouting out "You lie!" at one point. While this over-the-top hostility makes Obama's vote-getting chore somewhat tougher, I think in the long run GOP behavior furthers what I spoke of the other day: the marginalization of their party to the crazies and the South (Congressman Wilson appears to represent both). Not many reasonable people watching last night would align themselves with the cat-calling Congressman over the cool, deferential president.
Though it does (from polls) appear to have been a personally profitable night for Obama -- and, as Elizabeth Edwards put it last night, an adult president seems to have put an end to an August where the country went to the circus -- I'm not going to suddenly change my view: This is still mostly irrelevant pageantry. The crux of the matter is what happens in the Congressional wrangling over the next few months. I take heart that even recalcitrant Ben Nelson called the speech a "game changer". I believe most progressives (save the "Single payer or nothing" crowd) felt supported last night, and even some marginal Dems were caught up in both Obama's vision and annoyance with the other side for their shoddy behavior. I still believe significant health reform this year is a very live possibility. Now, the real work begins.
Maybe the biggest point of comparison between the two is the class they exude. Both are soft-spoken and respectful. For Jeter, this has led to baseball-wide admiration...even members of the opposition Rays took to the top steps of the dugout last night to salute his achievement. Obama has no such luck: his GOP opponents sat on their hands most of the night, and one SC member showed a shocking lack of decorum by (falsely) shouting out "You lie!" at one point. While this over-the-top hostility makes Obama's vote-getting chore somewhat tougher, I think in the long run GOP behavior furthers what I spoke of the other day: the marginalization of their party to the crazies and the South (Congressman Wilson appears to represent both). Not many reasonable people watching last night would align themselves with the cat-calling Congressman over the cool, deferential president.
Though it does (from polls) appear to have been a personally profitable night for Obama -- and, as Elizabeth Edwards put it last night, an adult president seems to have put an end to an August where the country went to the circus -- I'm not going to suddenly change my view: This is still mostly irrelevant pageantry. The crux of the matter is what happens in the Congressional wrangling over the next few months. I take heart that even recalcitrant Ben Nelson called the speech a "game changer". I believe most progressives (save the "Single payer or nothing" crowd) felt supported last night, and even some marginal Dems were caught up in both Obama's vision and annoyance with the other side for their shoddy behavior. I still believe significant health reform this year is a very live possibility. Now, the real work begins.
What a fascinating and thoughtful analysis, Mister Tee. I really look forward to your political commentary.
I was at Michele Norris' (NPR) birthday party on Saturday night and was discussing the very same idea with Gwen Ifill who, by the way, shares a similar view re: Obama. The idea that he's sacrificing immediate gratification for the bigger legislative picture seems much more in line with his campaign goals.
Not for nothing, I also had three helpings of Gwen's peach cobbler (with a much-lauded secret ingredient) and it was one of the most heavenly things I've ever tasted.
Edited By flipp525 on 1252437048
I was at Michele Norris' (NPR) birthday party on Saturday night and was discussing the very same idea with Gwen Ifill who, by the way, shares a similar view re: Obama. The idea that he's sacrificing immediate gratification for the bigger legislative picture seems much more in line with his campaign goals.
Not for nothing, I also had three helpings of Gwen's peach cobbler (with a much-lauded secret ingredient) and it was one of the most heavenly things I've ever tasted.
Edited By flipp525 on 1252437048
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Okay, okay, I'll lighten up. But a few more things I'll throw in:
Everyone does realize the glorification of Harry Truman is 100% post-facto revisionism? Truman was widely considered a buffoon by even many in his party -- ESPECIALLY the far left, who abandoned him for Henry Wallace in 1948 -- and left office in 1953 the most widely-despised president since Hoover. (Remember all those records for low poll standing Bush surpassed? They were Truman's) It's nice for the Truman family that David McCullough took it upon himself to refurbish his reputation (as he also tried, unconvincingly in my view, to whitewash John Adams' support for the Alien and Sedition Act), but to jump from that to "A president who acts like Truman will get the country rallied behind him" defies scholarship.
I get the feeling from reading many here that you think Obama's a moron -- that he's somehow not noticed the Republicans are obstructionist swine. I think the chances he's missed this are infinitesimal. So, I assume he's playing a different game. As I see it, he's giving these lunatics enough rope to hang themselves, to move the middle firmly and substantially into the Democratic column the same way they moved to the GOP in reaction to Abbie Hoffman and Angela Davis 40 years ago. This is building a base upon which the party can stand for the next decade or two. That Obama has seemed, if anything, overly reasonable with them so far only estabishes his bona fides for the time when (as I believe is inevitable) he forges ahead with a fully Democratic plan health care plan. And, again, I remind everyone: no final votes have been taken. Till then, everything that's said is (to use a Truman-ism) pure eyewash.
Bottom line: Many on the left seem to want the emotional satisfaction of seeing the right -- if not the entire GOP -- told off now. Obama prefers the greater-term satisfaction of country-changing legislation, and believes that cause is best served by holding his fire. We'll find out sometime this year which approach had more validity.
Everyone does realize the glorification of Harry Truman is 100% post-facto revisionism? Truman was widely considered a buffoon by even many in his party -- ESPECIALLY the far left, who abandoned him for Henry Wallace in 1948 -- and left office in 1953 the most widely-despised president since Hoover. (Remember all those records for low poll standing Bush surpassed? They were Truman's) It's nice for the Truman family that David McCullough took it upon himself to refurbish his reputation (as he also tried, unconvincingly in my view, to whitewash John Adams' support for the Alien and Sedition Act), but to jump from that to "A president who acts like Truman will get the country rallied behind him" defies scholarship.
I get the feeling from reading many here that you think Obama's a moron -- that he's somehow not noticed the Republicans are obstructionist swine. I think the chances he's missed this are infinitesimal. So, I assume he's playing a different game. As I see it, he's giving these lunatics enough rope to hang themselves, to move the middle firmly and substantially into the Democratic column the same way they moved to the GOP in reaction to Abbie Hoffman and Angela Davis 40 years ago. This is building a base upon which the party can stand for the next decade or two. That Obama has seemed, if anything, overly reasonable with them so far only estabishes his bona fides for the time when (as I believe is inevitable) he forges ahead with a fully Democratic plan health care plan. And, again, I remind everyone: no final votes have been taken. Till then, everything that's said is (to use a Truman-ism) pure eyewash.
Bottom line: Many on the left seem to want the emotional satisfaction of seeing the right -- if not the entire GOP -- told off now. Obama prefers the greater-term satisfaction of country-changing legislation, and believes that cause is best served by holding his fire. We'll find out sometime this year which approach had more validity.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Geez, Tee, lighten up already. I was being facetious but, really, Obama ought to stop trying to walk the middle of the road and act like the full blown liberal he is at heart. The sub-morons on the right are are going to continue to paint him that way no matter what he does anyway. The attacks this past week on something as benign as his welcome back address to students, something started by Reagan and Bush Sr., is a prime example. A little of "Give 'em Hell Harry" would do him a world of good but it isn't going to happen, certainly not in his address Wednesday night.Mister Tee wrote:Magilla, I'm sorry, I think your "If Obama doesn't walk on water this week, Hillary will destroy him" is completely absurd -- Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult it is to achieve results where health care is concerned; I also think she knows such a move would fracture the Democratic party 60s style, and she's too shrewd to put herself in position to be blamed for that. And as far as "It'll be over for Obama" -- Jesus Christ, Clinton lost both houses of Congress in '94 and came back to easy re-election. Snap judgments on presidencies are for amateurs; take a longer view.
taki15 wrote:Heksagon wrote: Is this article available online? Klein writes for Time, right?
Klein's Article.
Apparently his commenters too are unable to verify or refute Klein's assesment, they just resort to name-calling and general bashing.
Thanks.
Right now:--I am VERY glad to be in Canada under a sensible health reform. The number of times I have been in the hospital, needed medications, needed CTs scans or others, doctors' visits, etc. over the past 7 months has not cost ME a penny.
This is not to say that our system is perfect. There are people clamouring for emergent care in some areas of this vast province( larger than WA,OR, CA joined together); our provincial conservative government, in order to meet these new economic stresses, feels it is OK to cut services in order to save money.
We are lucky: we live 10 minutes from a hospital, and if one goes to emergency and you are serious enough you get immediate care. We are fortunate we don't live in the boonies.
If I had had to pay for all the services I have had over these months, and gone to the States, all of what I have gone through would have broken us, and we would have had to sell to stay alive, and I am supposed to be dead within the year. A friend in Seattle estimated what my care would cost there and it amounted to $146,000US.
I will be watching US news all this week. If only Obama would get it though his head that his "bipartsianship" and a friendly hand out to these Repugnants( as Damien has called them), when all they want to do is scare the public that can be easily swayed, and you get the kind of remark made by a woman from Virginia: "I don't think I want my child hearing all this socialist propaganda". They want to drive the black guy out.
I want all of you out there fighting for the older people--those on fixed incomes: they are the ones who cannot afford health care, but will benefit from his plan.
Edited By cam on 1252374238
This is not to say that our system is perfect. There are people clamouring for emergent care in some areas of this vast province( larger than WA,OR, CA joined together); our provincial conservative government, in order to meet these new economic stresses, feels it is OK to cut services in order to save money.
We are lucky: we live 10 minutes from a hospital, and if one goes to emergency and you are serious enough you get immediate care. We are fortunate we don't live in the boonies.
If I had had to pay for all the services I have had over these months, and gone to the States, all of what I have gone through would have broken us, and we would have had to sell to stay alive, and I am supposed to be dead within the year. A friend in Seattle estimated what my care would cost there and it amounted to $146,000US.
I will be watching US news all this week. If only Obama would get it though his head that his "bipartsianship" and a friendly hand out to these Repugnants( as Damien has called them), when all they want to do is scare the public that can be easily swayed, and you get the kind of remark made by a woman from Virginia: "I don't think I want my child hearing all this socialist propaganda". They want to drive the black guy out.
I want all of you out there fighting for the older people--those on fixed incomes: they are the ones who cannot afford health care, but will benefit from his plan.
Edited By cam on 1252374238