Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Friday, January 31, 2020
Friday, June 9, 2017
That "meddlesome priest"
Just a few things the major media failed to emphasize:
✽ Bill Clinton's tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch on June 27, 2016, was the straw that broke the camel's back for Comey, leading to his July 5 hatchet job on Hillary. Did Bill intend to screw her, or was it just passive aggression? You decide.
✽ The persistent parsing of the word "hoping" by Senator James Risch is a pretty clear indicator that the Utah Republican really believes Tr*mp is guilty of obstruction of justice. As Queen Gertrude said in Hamlet (Act III, Scene II), "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
✽ Somebody would have had to explain to Tr*mp who Becket and Henry II were, and the relevance of the "meddlesome priest" comments. He probably didn't get it.
Correction: an earlier iteration of this post substituted "turbulent" for "meddlesome." Although more frequently cited as Henry II's description of Becket, it was not the analogy employed by Comey.
Friday, October 14, 2016
Pussygate
I suppose we should not be surprised that it took a sex scandal to bring low a presidential candidate who is, in so many other ways, thoroughly despicable. America, the eternally adolescent, is unfazed by mere hatred and calumny. America requires misbehavior that can be expressed in dirty words.
Many of Tr*mp's supporters, of course, are happy to accept that a vast "establishment conspiracy" has plotted against him, and that his "locker room talk" was just an innocent example of "boys will be boys." After all, talk radio has fed them similar conspiracy theories for many years. Others, predictably, don't see sexual assault as disqualifying. When you get right down to it, some Tr*mp supporters really are deplorable. (Not half, though! It's not nice to deplore people for their intellectual disabilities! Or am I being too "politically correct?")
As for the Podesta emails, they've been largely ignored partly because much of the public finds them too hard to understand. The rest of us just shrug and say, "So what else is new?" Looking forward to a Clinton presidency, I anticipate the same old absence of transparency and the inevitable tack to the right. The revolution has been postponed once again.
Many of Tr*mp's supporters, of course, are happy to accept that a vast "establishment conspiracy" has plotted against him, and that his "locker room talk" was just an innocent example of "boys will be boys." After all, talk radio has fed them similar conspiracy theories for many years. Others, predictably, don't see sexual assault as disqualifying. When you get right down to it, some Tr*mp supporters really are deplorable. (Not half, though! It's not nice to deplore people for their intellectual disabilities! Or am I being too "politically correct?")
As for the Podesta emails, they've been largely ignored partly because much of the public finds them too hard to understand. The rest of us just shrug and say, "So what else is new?" Looking forward to a Clinton presidency, I anticipate the same old absence of transparency and the inevitable tack to the right. The revolution has been postponed once again.
Monday, October 10, 2016
The Second "Debate"
The presidential debate in St. Louis would have been just as informative and moderately more amusing had the candidates been dressed in clown suits and armed with seltzer bottles, although that format might have done even more damage to hard-working birthday clowns already suffering from the latest "creepy clown" panic. If Tr*mp hoped to get past his latest predatory image, he didn't do himself much good by stalking around the stage striking intimidating poses. Clinton looked like she would have preferred to be anywhere else — and who could blame her?
The "town hall" format was meaningless, because those few "undecided" citizens who got to ask questions were largely ignored. Tr*mp almost immediately accused moderators Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper of being "against" him, even though they did a competent job of concealing their disgust.
One interesting Clinton tactic was an effort to tie Tr*mp to Vladimir Putin. Granted, Putin might prefer to deal with an internally weakened USofA under a President Tr*mp, but it is hard to accept that Tr*mp has invited or encouraged Putin's interference in the American election: sociopaths do not automatically stick together. In truth, I see more of the paranoid stylings of Erdogan or Duterte in Tr*mp than the icy manipulations of the Russian leader.
Most Americans will breathe a sigh of relief when this election is over, but the disruptive and destructive impact of the election will not end soon.
The "town hall" format was meaningless, because those few "undecided" citizens who got to ask questions were largely ignored. Tr*mp almost immediately accused moderators Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper of being "against" him, even though they did a competent job of concealing their disgust.
One interesting Clinton tactic was an effort to tie Tr*mp to Vladimir Putin. Granted, Putin might prefer to deal with an internally weakened USofA under a President Tr*mp, but it is hard to accept that Tr*mp has invited or encouraged Putin's interference in the American election: sociopaths do not automatically stick together. In truth, I see more of the paranoid stylings of Erdogan or Duterte in Tr*mp than the icy manipulations of the Russian leader.
Most Americans will breathe a sigh of relief when this election is over, but the disruptive and destructive impact of the election will not end soon.
* * *
We lost one of the best with the death of Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson. His efforts to review and correct the injustices of the past were unprecedented, and should serve as a model for law enforcement officials everywhere.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Musings
Hey! Didja hear? Tr*mp is a pig! (So, what else is new?) And Clinton sucks up to bankers! (Uh huh.) And Putin's hackers are trying to help Tr*mp! (My goodness!) And Gary Johnson is burnt! (Oh, really?) And Paul Ryan wishes he could crawl into a hole and never come out! (Do it!)
Where did they find a houseful of "uncommitted" voters for Sunday's debate? Guantanamo? Mars? Just how ignorant does a person have to be to remain "uncommitted" at this point? I suppose the committee could have found plenty of people who hate both their guts — and that could make for a pretty interesting "town hall."
I take a little solace from Clinton's comments on why she opposed CAFTA — the labor protections were not strong enough. The truth about trade is that no significant tariff barriers have been in place for many years, and the main impact of the TPP would be to facilitate corporate lawsuits against governments to roll back labor and environmental protections, and to extend monopolistic corporate patents and copyrights. Free trade is here to stay.
Where did they find a houseful of "uncommitted" voters for Sunday's debate? Guantanamo? Mars? Just how ignorant does a person have to be to remain "uncommitted" at this point? I suppose the committee could have found plenty of people who hate both their guts — and that could make for a pretty interesting "town hall."
I take a little solace from Clinton's comments on why she opposed CAFTA — the labor protections were not strong enough. The truth about trade is that no significant tariff barriers have been in place for many years, and the main impact of the TPP would be to facilitate corporate lawsuits against governments to roll back labor and environmental protections, and to extend monopolistic corporate patents and copyrights. Free trade is here to stay.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Debate #1
For most of the American public, watching a presidential debate is a lot like watching a foreign movie with no subtitles: it's not what you say that matters, it's how you say it, and the overall impression you leave. Hence, there is no reason to parse the candidates' words for meaning, much less to fact-check.
Clinton, as usual, left the viewer uninspired — she is not one to stir anything resembling a strong emotional response. On the other hand, she was cool and willing to poke a few needles when the situation arose. We saw no sign of weakness, so the net effect seemed positive.
One supposes Tr*mp's constant interruptions were intended to demonstrate strength, but they just came across as bad manners. His insistence that the news media lied when they reported the chronology of his attitudes towards the Iraq war or his role in the birther campaign came across somewhere between bluster and paranoia. The net effect, in my estimation, was negative.
So, my feeling is that the debate's impact on that substantial block of voters who dislike both candidates may have nudged the needle slightly in Clinton's direction — or, more accurately, further away from Tr*mp. We'll just wait and see.
Clinton, as usual, left the viewer uninspired — she is not one to stir anything resembling a strong emotional response. On the other hand, she was cool and willing to poke a few needles when the situation arose. We saw no sign of weakness, so the net effect seemed positive.
One supposes Tr*mp's constant interruptions were intended to demonstrate strength, but they just came across as bad manners. His insistence that the news media lied when they reported the chronology of his attitudes towards the Iraq war or his role in the birther campaign came across somewhere between bluster and paranoia. The net effect, in my estimation, was negative.
So, my feeling is that the debate's impact on that substantial block of voters who dislike both candidates may have nudged the needle slightly in Clinton's direction — or, more accurately, further away from Tr*mp. We'll just wait and see.
Friday, August 12, 2016
Briefly
The "Coup"
If any CIAgents were involved in the Turkish coup attempt, they should be fired for incompetence — if there actually was a coup attempt. The bombing at Marmaris, where Ergodan wasn't, and General Hulusi Akar being held "at gunpoint" both sound extremely fishy to me. Apply the principle of cui bono — who benefits — and the most likely "coup" plotter is Erdogan himself.
Economic Policies
The essentials of Tr*mp's "revolutionary" economic plan turn out to be the usual Republican model for further enriching the very rich. All the talk about trade barriers is nothing but window dressing, since none of it would be enacted by any US Congress. Clinton, essentially, is calling for more of what we've had so far, plus a few bells and whistles that would be blocked by a Republican House. If the House happens to go Democratic, other means will be found to prevent the enactment of anything significant.
Kill Hillary
Tr*mp's lightly veiled suggestion that some yahoo assassinate his rival should she win the presidency is essentially meaningless. Those particular yahoos certainly will have come up with the idea on their own.
Corrupt v. Crazy
It's not much of a choice, given that we're well-accustomed to corrupt.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Yeah. Right.
Now that Tr*mp's repeated efforts to self-destruct finally appear to be working, my concerns about Hillary in the White House are getting more acute. Establishment Republicans are swinging her way as their party's candidate grows increasingly bizarre, and some are beginning to endorse her. Will she look on this as "permission" to forget her commitments to the Left, getting back in touch with her true, neoliberal, Third Way soul? Probably. There's good reason that nobody trusts her.
Meanwhile, in Turkey, the United States is getting the blame for the failed coup attempt. I certainly hope we weren't responsible, because if we were it means CIA incompetence is far greater than previously suspected. It also means that we are even more susceptible to Erdogan's blackmail than before, assuming that Incirlik Air Base is as important as the military makes it out to be. (Note: if Fethullah Gulen is extradited, he will be tortured.)
Meanwhile, in Turkey, the United States is getting the blame for the failed coup attempt. I certainly hope we weren't responsible, because if we were it means CIA incompetence is far greater than previously suspected. It also means that we are even more susceptible to Erdogan's blackmail than before, assuming that Incirlik Air Base is as important as the military makes it out to be. (Note: if Fethullah Gulen is extradited, he will be tortured.)
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Liars
"How can you tell if a politician is lying?"
"His lips are moving."
If one thing is certain coming out of the Clinton email fiasco, it's that Hillary is a liar. Okay, nobody is surprised. Is it on the same level as "I didn't have sex with that woman?" Actually, it is, pretty much. Like Bill, Hillary told lies of expediency, aimed at diverting immediate blame. It's kind of on the same level as "The dog ate it."
Unlike Hillary, Tr*mp actually seems to believe his lies as he tells them — then believes his contradictions the next day. It strikes me, at least, as pathological.
Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage told a number of major whoppers in their campaign for the Brexit vote, most notably about the amount of money the UK would save by withdrawing from the EU, and the idea that said money would be used to shore up the National Health Service. Both of them, however, had the good grace to duck out of the way when their lies were uncovered.
"His lips are moving."
If one thing is certain coming out of the Clinton email fiasco, it's that Hillary is a liar. Okay, nobody is surprised. Is it on the same level as "I didn't have sex with that woman?" Actually, it is, pretty much. Like Bill, Hillary told lies of expediency, aimed at diverting immediate blame. It's kind of on the same level as "The dog ate it."
Unlike Hillary, Tr*mp actually seems to believe his lies as he tells them — then believes his contradictions the next day. It strikes me, at least, as pathological.
Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage told a number of major whoppers in their campaign for the Brexit vote, most notably about the amount of money the UK would save by withdrawing from the EU, and the idea that said money would be used to shore up the National Health Service. Both of them, however, had the good grace to duck out of the way when their lies were uncovered.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
The Future of US Foreign Policy
In brief, prospects for ongoing US foreign policy are not encouraging. The Donald's ineptitude is such that he is certain to defer to "the best generals" in matters of war and peace, and Hillary's stance in the 2008 primaries and as Secretary of State suggest that she will continue her ongoing attempts to prove she has enough "balls" to be "one of the boys." Bernie Sanders will probably have significant impact on the Democratic platform, but the relationship between a party's platform and what happens when that party wins an election has little if any bearing on what its candidate does when elected to office.
The "War on Terror"
Tr*mp vacillates between isolationism and carpet bombing (along with use of torture and killing the families of terrorists), but his commitment to building the size and strength of the military makes one wonder if "boots on the ground" might be inevitable — the military-industrial complex would like that, since it could restore sales to 2010 levels. Clinton has been largely silent on her suggestion of a "no-fly zone" in Syria lately, but her history on interventionism is troubling, including her vote for the war in Iraq and endorsement of intervention in Libya. Neither has any fresh ideas for dealing with the Islamist State as an international threat, even if Obama's efforts to cut into the territory it occupies continue to make progress.
The Middle East
It seems clear that Clinton will maintain US support for the Arab autocracies, despite copious human rights abuses within their territories and Saudi war crimes in Yemen. She also will be more friendly to Netanyahu's increasingly bellicose and repressive path for Israel than Obama has been, and the Palestinians will be out of luck, no matter what Bernie gets into the Democratic platform. Tr*mp's support from Sheldon Adelson suggests that he will be even deeper in Netanyahu's pocket than Clinton; and his rejection of the Iran deal and insistence that the Saudi's "pay their own way" would be a recipe for a nuclear armed Middle East. With regard to Assad, Tr*mp might be too conciliatory, Clinton too bellicose.
Europe
I don't know if anybody has considered problems that might arise from installing missile "defense" systems (against Iran? Yeah, right!) in Eastern European countries moving ever closer to fascism, but that probably can wait for 2020. Neither US candidate has anything to offer Europe in dealing with its refugee crisis, and neither will use US influence over the IMF in an attempt to soften Europe's devastating austerity regime, albeit neo-liberal (aka neo-conservative) US bankers have a lot more influence than US political leaders. Clinton certainly understands Europe's problems better than Tr*mp, but she's no less neo-liberal in her thinking than her husband was — and nobody knows what impact Tr*mp's affection for Putin might bring
Asia and the Pacific
The US Chamber of Commerce seems confident that Clinton will change her mind about support for the TPP as soon as she's president, and they're probably right. Tr*mp seems to think he could negotiate a "better deal," but his confidence in his negotiating skills is just as inflated as his hair. The Chinese, I suspect, couldn't care less which of them is elected because China's economic and military power is unlikely to be affected. Tr*mp's fantasies of Japan and South Korea having their own nuclear arms would almost certainly remain fantasies, because not all Republicans are total idiots.
Africa
If Tr*mp can identify more than three African countries on an outline map, I'd be very surprised. Clinton, at least, is aware of the mess that is African politics and economics, but is unlikely to move beyond Obama's very limited engagement there. With either of them, Africa will remain on the back burner until something explodes.
Latin America
Haven't you had enough pessimism for one post? It's certainly been enough for me, so I'll pass over Latin America — where the US has had virtually no policy at all since "our" dictators were overthrown — and save it for another day. In the meanwhile, though, keep an eye on Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, et al. Tr*mp's "wall" won't keep the chaos south of the border.
The "War on Terror"
Tr*mp vacillates between isolationism and carpet bombing (along with use of torture and killing the families of terrorists), but his commitment to building the size and strength of the military makes one wonder if "boots on the ground" might be inevitable — the military-industrial complex would like that, since it could restore sales to 2010 levels. Clinton has been largely silent on her suggestion of a "no-fly zone" in Syria lately, but her history on interventionism is troubling, including her vote for the war in Iraq and endorsement of intervention in Libya. Neither has any fresh ideas for dealing with the Islamist State as an international threat, even if Obama's efforts to cut into the territory it occupies continue to make progress.
The Middle East
It seems clear that Clinton will maintain US support for the Arab autocracies, despite copious human rights abuses within their territories and Saudi war crimes in Yemen. She also will be more friendly to Netanyahu's increasingly bellicose and repressive path for Israel than Obama has been, and the Palestinians will be out of luck, no matter what Bernie gets into the Democratic platform. Tr*mp's support from Sheldon Adelson suggests that he will be even deeper in Netanyahu's pocket than Clinton; and his rejection of the Iran deal and insistence that the Saudi's "pay their own way" would be a recipe for a nuclear armed Middle East. With regard to Assad, Tr*mp might be too conciliatory, Clinton too bellicose.
Europe
I don't know if anybody has considered problems that might arise from installing missile "defense" systems (against Iran? Yeah, right!) in Eastern European countries moving ever closer to fascism, but that probably can wait for 2020. Neither US candidate has anything to offer Europe in dealing with its refugee crisis, and neither will use US influence over the IMF in an attempt to soften Europe's devastating austerity regime, albeit neo-liberal (aka neo-conservative) US bankers have a lot more influence than US political leaders. Clinton certainly understands Europe's problems better than Tr*mp, but she's no less neo-liberal in her thinking than her husband was — and nobody knows what impact Tr*mp's affection for Putin might bring
Asia and the Pacific
The US Chamber of Commerce seems confident that Clinton will change her mind about support for the TPP as soon as she's president, and they're probably right. Tr*mp seems to think he could negotiate a "better deal," but his confidence in his negotiating skills is just as inflated as his hair. The Chinese, I suspect, couldn't care less which of them is elected because China's economic and military power is unlikely to be affected. Tr*mp's fantasies of Japan and South Korea having their own nuclear arms would almost certainly remain fantasies, because not all Republicans are total idiots.
Africa
If Tr*mp can identify more than three African countries on an outline map, I'd be very surprised. Clinton, at least, is aware of the mess that is African politics and economics, but is unlikely to move beyond Obama's very limited engagement there. With either of them, Africa will remain on the back burner until something explodes.
Latin America
Haven't you had enough pessimism for one post? It's certainly been enough for me, so I'll pass over Latin America — where the US has had virtually no policy at all since "our" dictators were overthrown — and save it for another day. In the meanwhile, though, keep an eye on Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, et al. Tr*mp's "wall" won't keep the chaos south of the border.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Briefly
What's With Bernie?
"Surely," all the talking heads have been saying, "it's time for Bernie to cede the nomination to Hillary and unite the party!" It hasn't happened, and if we need a figurehead for Bernie's problem with the Democratic establishment, look no further than Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She and the DNC were looking forward to a coronation, and set debate schedules, fundraising procedures, and media connections to ensure it happened. Well, it didn't happen, and Bernie is pissed. Should anyone be surprised?
What's With Netanyahu?
Bibi is set to replace Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon with a nationalist, religion pandering, totally despicable psychopath by the name of Avigdor Lieberman. It's not for the good of Israel — it's solely for the sake of maintaining Bibi's hold on power, and any chance for some belated reconciliation with the Palestinians will be destroyed. The Army opposes the move. We'll see what happens.
What's With Maduro?
Venezuela is in crisis. People there can't even buy basic goods like toilet paper, but Nicolás Maduro is stubbornly refusing to accept that his own incompetence is largely responsible. The only thing that can save the Bolivarian Revolution is a rapid jump in oil prices, and that just ain't happening. Things have deteriorated so far that one even could justify calling in the IMF — and nobody has ever heard me say that before!
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Bigly
Donald Tr*mp, now the Republican nominee barring divine lightning strikes and such like, says he will win the November election "bigly." Yes, he said he'd "win bigly."
I can't say I'm sorry to see the end of the Ted Cr*z campaign. Cr*z's loss is a loss for the Christianist bigots, the most rabid "conservatives," and the self-righteous haters long the essential "base" of the Republican Party. The "fact" that Cruz senior was involved in the Kennedy assassination (according to Tr*mp) seemed to have no bearing on the voting — probably because equal numbers of Republicans approved of that assassination as disapproved.
I'm also not unhappy that wolf-in-sheep's-clothing John Kasich dropped out. The wealthy donors who supported him probably will start giving to Hillary's superPAC — the corporations never had many complaints about the last Clinton administration.
I don't much care for Hillary. I suppose a lot of that arises from my dislike of Bill, but she's also a lot more of a hawk than Obama has been. Also, I expect that she'll follow Obama's lead on defending government secrecy and persecuting whistleblowers. Just the same, I'll vote for her in the general election, and I'm trying to persuade other Sanders supporters to do the same. Trump is a complete unknown in terms of real policy beliefs, and his ignorance of everything except marketing his own brand makes him especially scary.
I'm also not confident that New York will remain a "safe" Democratic state this time around, so I guess Jill Stein of the Green Party will have to do without me this year. Okay, I'll say it:
Vote for Hillary: It Could Be Worse!
It could be a lot worse.
I can't say I'm sorry to see the end of the Ted Cr*z campaign. Cr*z's loss is a loss for the Christianist bigots, the most rabid "conservatives," and the self-righteous haters long the essential "base" of the Republican Party. The "fact" that Cruz senior was involved in the Kennedy assassination (according to Tr*mp) seemed to have no bearing on the voting — probably because equal numbers of Republicans approved of that assassination as disapproved.
I'm also not unhappy that wolf-in-sheep's-clothing John Kasich dropped out. The wealthy donors who supported him probably will start giving to Hillary's superPAC — the corporations never had many complaints about the last Clinton administration.
I don't much care for Hillary. I suppose a lot of that arises from my dislike of Bill, but she's also a lot more of a hawk than Obama has been. Also, I expect that she'll follow Obama's lead on defending government secrecy and persecuting whistleblowers. Just the same, I'll vote for her in the general election, and I'm trying to persuade other Sanders supporters to do the same. Trump is a complete unknown in terms of real policy beliefs, and his ignorance of everything except marketing his own brand makes him especially scary.
I'm also not confident that New York will remain a "safe" Democratic state this time around, so I guess Jill Stein of the Green Party will have to do without me this year. Okay, I'll say it:
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Fear and Loathing
If this has become a battle between fear and loathing, it appears that Republicans who know both candidates are deciding they’d rather be afraid. — Gail CollinsIt's true. Ted Cr*z is making Donald Tr*mp look reasonable by comparison, and that's extremely problematic. Cr*z, after all, is despicable, genuinely despicable. Even John Boehner — not the world's cuddliest man — calls Cr*z "Lucifer incarnate." The danger of a Tr*mp who appears "reasonable," of course, is the possibility of President Tr*mp in 2017.
Hillary is hard to like, even now that Bernie has pulled her far enough to the left to be significantly out of her comfort zone. She's the consummate politician, and we don't like politicians. People just don't trust her. (I don't. Maybe I'm wrong to tar her with the same brush as that lying, plutocrat pandering husband of hers, but I can't forget Bill promising us "Two for the price of one." Two of him? Just kill me now.)
Anyway, I'll be reaching out to any young, idealistic Bernie supporters I encounter, and trying to teach them the hardest lesson of politics: sometimes you just have to hold your nose and swallow.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Oh, yeah... Iowa
Not that it actually matters, but here are some observations:
Back when I was young, political conventions actually selected candidates, and it was a lot of fun. I'm hoping to see that happen again.
- Since Iowa is a caucus state, people actually get to see who their friends and neighbors are supporting. It is possible that a significant number of voters who would happily support Tr*mp in a secret ballot might hesitate to do so in an open caucus for fear of open mockery.
- Cruz put a hell(?) of a lot of faith in Jesus when he opposed the motor fuel ethanol requirement. One assumes there are many evangelicals with no strong economic reliance on corn farming.
- Rubio's "victory" speech pandered to the pathologically religious with all the vehemence of, say, Ted Cruz. He didn't mention his support for eliminating the capital gains tax, which constitutes pandering to a much smaller but much wealthier interest group.
- Hillary's camp declaring "victory" while in a dead heat with Sanders and with ten per cent of the vote still out struck me as, shall we say, odd.
- Given that we're talking about Iowa, with its proportional delegate selection and other foibles, it seems absurd that anybody should claim to have "won" — except for the fact that America loves "winners," and politicians are pathologically needy.
Back when I was young, political conventions actually selected candidates, and it was a lot of fun. I'm hoping to see that happen again.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Deficit cutting?
It's hard to stay mad at the guy -- although I'm sure our new president will find yet another way to get me flying off the handle in short order. Nevertheless, today, I like what I'm reading.
Mind you, I don't see much chance of cutting the budget deficit in half over the next four years, since I honestly don't believe the current stimulus is large enough to jumpstart the economy. What is making me happy today is the means Obama proposes to reduce the deficit.
The 39.6% top marginal tax rate was, in my opinion, Bill Clinton's greatest accomplishment. No matter what the Republicans insist, it never seemed to slow economic growth in the slightest -- and the elimination of that tax category under Bush accounts for a good chunk of the Bush deficit. Yes, Mr. President, by all means -- let's bring that back again.
Even more encouraging, to me, is the plan to tax the investment income of hedge fund and private equity partners at income tax rates rather than capital gains tax rates. I honestly don't know how much extra money that will put into government coffers, but if it happens, I will happily take back everything I've said (as in my previous post) about Obama being a Clintonesque stooge of Wall Street.
To conflate Rahm Emmanuel and the United Negro College Fund, a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- so let's get out there and soak the rich. Now, that's change I can believe in.
Mind you, I don't see much chance of cutting the budget deficit in half over the next four years, since I honestly don't believe the current stimulus is large enough to jumpstart the economy. What is making me happy today is the means Obama proposes to reduce the deficit.
The 39.6% top marginal tax rate was, in my opinion, Bill Clinton's greatest accomplishment. No matter what the Republicans insist, it never seemed to slow economic growth in the slightest -- and the elimination of that tax category under Bush accounts for a good chunk of the Bush deficit. Yes, Mr. President, by all means -- let's bring that back again.
Even more encouraging, to me, is the plan to tax the investment income of hedge fund and private equity partners at income tax rates rather than capital gains tax rates. I honestly don't know how much extra money that will put into government coffers, but if it happens, I will happily take back everything I've said (as in my previous post) about Obama being a Clintonesque stooge of Wall Street.
To conflate Rahm Emmanuel and the United Negro College Fund, a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- so let's get out there and soak the rich. Now, that's change I can believe in.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Clinton in blackface
Anybody who knew me back in the nineties will recall that I was no fan of Bill Clinton, the Democrat who made me feel nostalgic for the liberalism of the Nixon administration. If you happened to notice me driving down the road on November 12, 1999, when the radio announced that Clinton had signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, you'd have slowed down and moved into the most distant lane in an effort to avoid a total lunatic.So now, after eight disastrous years of Bush, we have Obama -- putatively "the change you can believe in." Okay, I believe some changes have taken place. From Bush, we seem to have moved about halfway back to Clinton.
I'm not blaming you for this, America. It's not as if you had a hell of a lot of options -- and electing a (sort of) black guy made a lot of people feel like they were voting for change. The problem was that real change never was an option. The plutocrats were in charge, and they remain in charge. Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS were among Obama’s top contributors. They gave him the early lead in the “money race” that made his candidacy viable.
In return, he let Robert Rubin create his economic team. Rubin, lest we forget, spent 26 years with Goldman-Sachs before he joined the Clinton administration. Together with acolyte Larry Summers and free-market ideologue Alan Greenspan, he quashed the regulation of derivatives and championed the repeal of Glass Steagall, making the current financial meltdown inevitable. Shortly before I found myself in my car, screaming at the radio, Rubin left the Clinton administration to sign on as senior advisor to Citigroup. Still working in that capacity, he signed on as chief financial advisor to Barack Obama.
So, what would you expect -- specifically, what would you expect of Rubin protégé Timothy Geithner, other than more "lemon socialism?" The private sector will "join" with the public sector to buy toxic assets from the afflicted banks that so generously supported Obama, and reap the rewards of any profits that might be made. Losses, of course, will be absorbed by taxpayers.
Clinton -- either one -- would have behaved no differently. On the other hand, if Hillary were president now, it's possible that a few other decisions would have been less Bushlike. A couple that come to mind are Obama's failure to overturn the Bush order allowing "faith-based" organizations receiving government funds to discriminate, based on religion, in hiring; and the continued use of "state secrets" as an excuse to protect Bush administration war criminals.
Well, maybe she'd have been no better. The same oligarchs who supported his campaign supported hers as well.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Turning point?
"Comes the revolution," my mother used to say, imitating her grandfather's Yiddish accent, "we'll all eat pitches and krim."
It was my introduction to irony, and, as a young child, I totally didn't get it. We ate peaches (canned) and cream (sour) as often as we liked -- and George Washington had won the revolution way back in olden times. I caught on later, though, in the sixties, when my radical friends and I were busy changing the world -- and it seems that Mom first heard the phrase from great-grandpa back in the thirties, when she and her radical friends were busy changing the world.
A sizable chunk of the population of the United States seems to think the revolution will be starting tomorrow, at the Obama inauguration -- to which I reply, "pitches and krim." Disappointment, I'm afraid, is inevitable. George Washington really did win the revolution -- the bourgeois revolution -- way back in "olden times," and the plutocrats have been firmly in charge ever since.
This is not to say that some revolutionary change didn't take place in the thirties, with the coming of welfare capitalism, or in the sixties, with the expansion of the welfare state and the gains accomplished for civil rights. It's just that the changes didn't match the expectations. They never do.
So what can we expect of Obama? Anybody who's been paying attention can see that while he speaks like an idealist, his actions are guided entirely by pragmatism. He will not expend "political capital" fighting the health care lobby, so we will not have the single-payer health insurance system we so desperately need. He will not stand up to the financial industry, weakened as it is, so we will continue the long-standing practice of socializing losses and privatizing profits. (Yes, taxpayers, you soon will own a shitload of "toxic assets.") He will not instruct his Justice Department to prosecute the leaders of the outgoing administration for war crimes, and he's likely to entagle us in Afghanistan just as thoroughly and painfully as Kennedy entangled us in Vietnam.
I think the best we can hope for is the reversal of some of the catastrophic mistakes of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II -- although nearly thirty years of free-market excess aided and abetted by government is not likely to disappear in eight, despite the clear failure of Milton Friedman/Alan Greenspan economics. Still, all of us can be happy that The Worst President In The History Of The United States Of America will no longer be around to make things even worse.
Is that enough of a "turning point" for you? I hope so.
It was my introduction to irony, and, as a young child, I totally didn't get it. We ate peaches (canned) and cream (sour) as often as we liked -- and George Washington had won the revolution way back in olden times. I caught on later, though, in the sixties, when my radical friends and I were busy changing the world -- and it seems that Mom first heard the phrase from great-grandpa back in the thirties, when she and her radical friends were busy changing the world.
A sizable chunk of the population of the United States seems to think the revolution will be starting tomorrow, at the Obama inauguration -- to which I reply, "pitches and krim." Disappointment, I'm afraid, is inevitable. George Washington really did win the revolution -- the bourgeois revolution -- way back in "olden times," and the plutocrats have been firmly in charge ever since.
This is not to say that some revolutionary change didn't take place in the thirties, with the coming of welfare capitalism, or in the sixties, with the expansion of the welfare state and the gains accomplished for civil rights. It's just that the changes didn't match the expectations. They never do.
So what can we expect of Obama? Anybody who's been paying attention can see that while he speaks like an idealist, his actions are guided entirely by pragmatism. He will not expend "political capital" fighting the health care lobby, so we will not have the single-payer health insurance system we so desperately need. He will not stand up to the financial industry, weakened as it is, so we will continue the long-standing practice of socializing losses and privatizing profits. (Yes, taxpayers, you soon will own a shitload of "toxic assets.") He will not instruct his Justice Department to prosecute the leaders of the outgoing administration for war crimes, and he's likely to entagle us in Afghanistan just as thoroughly and painfully as Kennedy entangled us in Vietnam.
I think the best we can hope for is the reversal of some of the catastrophic mistakes of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II -- although nearly thirty years of free-market excess aided and abetted by government is not likely to disappear in eight, despite the clear failure of Milton Friedman/Alan Greenspan economics. Still, all of us can be happy that The Worst President In The History Of The United States Of America will no longer be around to make things even worse.
Is that enough of a "turning point" for you? I hope so.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Democratic convention: days 1&2
While I'm waiting for something to happen, now that it's the third night, I figured I might as well say a few words about the past couple of days. I made the mistake of watching on PBS rather than CSPAN, so I had to do quite a bit of internet searching to find the speeches I wanted to hear, but I think I'm pretty much caught up now.
Michele Obama did just fine, of course. She's poised, intelligent, attractive, and extremely likable. She delivered a predictably predictable speech, but with consummate style and professionalism. She left me wondering, as I wondered back in 1992, whether we'd nominated the wrong spouse -- and if Michele wasn't good enough on her own, Sasha and Malia put the icing on the cake. Put Michele and the girls up against Cindy McCain in the "family photo" competition, and it's no contest.
My favorite speech for day 2 was by Dennis Kucinich. You didn't hear it, of course, because it wasn't covered by the networks, PBS, or cable news -- and even I wouldn't expect you to be watching CSPAN. Thanks to the internet, however, you still can watch it here.
Of course the speech everybody was waiting for was was the speech by Hillary Clinton. I thought it was a hell of a good speech, but no sooner was it over than the Obamists in the media started complaining that Hillary had not kissed enough ass. "She said mean, hurtful things about him during the primaries," they complained, "and she didn't even apologize." Well, guess what, assholes? The speech wasn't intended to assuage your hurt feelings. The goal was to unify the party by bringing the "we wuz robbed" Hillary supporters in line behind Obama -- and you know what? It looks like it worked.
, , ,
Some people think Dennis Kucinich looks like a marionette, but compared to Mark Warner, well... If there ever was a keynote speaker more wooden than Warner, he was burned for firewood back in the Eisenhower years.
Whoops! Bill Clinton is on now! Later!
Michele Obama did just fine, of course. She's poised, intelligent, attractive, and extremely likable. She delivered a predictably predictable speech, but with consummate style and professionalism. She left me wondering, as I wondered back in 1992, whether we'd nominated the wrong spouse -- and if Michele wasn't good enough on her own, Sasha and Malia put the icing on the cake. Put Michele and the girls up against Cindy McCain in the "family photo" competition, and it's no contest.
My favorite speech for day 2 was by Dennis Kucinich. You didn't hear it, of course, because it wasn't covered by the networks, PBS, or cable news -- and even I wouldn't expect you to be watching CSPAN. Thanks to the internet, however, you still can watch it here.
Of course the speech everybody was waiting for was was the speech by Hillary Clinton. I thought it was a hell of a good speech, but no sooner was it over than the Obamists in the media started complaining that Hillary had not kissed enough ass. "She said mean, hurtful things about him during the primaries," they complained, "and she didn't even apologize." Well, guess what, assholes? The speech wasn't intended to assuage your hurt feelings. The goal was to unify the party by bringing the "we wuz robbed" Hillary supporters in line behind Obama -- and you know what? It looks like it worked.
, , ,
Some people think Dennis Kucinich looks like a marionette, but compared to Mark Warner, well... If there ever was a keynote speaker more wooden than Warner, he was burned for firewood back in the Eisenhower years.
Whoops! Bill Clinton is on now! Later!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Wimp factor?
Ah, ironies upon ironies!
A woman competing in a testosterone infused environment, Hillary Clinton saw the need to demonstrate her, ah, manliness. It was that need more than anything else, I believe, that led her to vote in favor of authorizing GWB to invade Iraq. After all, saber rattling is a very manly activity, and those who demur might be considered, well, effeminate. We can't have some pansy leading the Free World, now -- can we?
And so Hillary never missed an opportunity to demonstrate that her lack of literal balls should not be construed as a lack of figurative balls. Yes, her political posturing did help to encourage the widespread suspicion that she might be a lesbian, but there was no helping that -- not if she ever was going to get a shot at the presidency.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, should have had the manliness thing sewn up. After all, in popular culture the black male is the very embodiment of unbridled male hormones. His problem, though, was exactly that -- our popularly conceived black man is entirely too scary to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review, much less President of the United States.
Obama found it necessary to cultivate his public image just as carefully as Clinton cultivated hers, except from an opposite perspective. He had to learn to be consistently calm, even tempered, and conciliatory. He had to eliminate any show of anger or aggression from his behavioral repertoire. Barack had to appear as "un-black" as Hillary appeared "un-feminine."
The result, as you must have noticed, is that Hillary out-machos Barack by a factor of three to one. She knocks back shots of whiskey while he's counting calories. I don't know if she could beat his bowling score, but now she doesn't even have to try. She even came up with a scenario for nuking Iran -- granted, a pretty far-fetched scenario where Iran nukes Israel first, but clearly that makes her a mensch. That schmekele Barack, though, won't even talk tough to Ahmedinijad. As it begins to look more and more like he'll be the Democratic candidate this Fall, Obama had better start dealing with what could be a serious problem.
It's commonly called "the wimp factor." Although the term was first used to accompany a photo of Bush Senior on the cover of Newsday in 1989, it's been a problem for many Democrats in the past. Think of Dukakis in the tank, Kerry windsurfing, even Adlai Stevenson offering his brilliant, intellectual analyses while the rest of America was chanting "I like Ike." Now think of how the press jumped all over Obama's allegedly "elitist" comments about the white working class from that speech he delivered in San Francisco last month.
Let's face it: there's nobody left in the United States who's really concerned about Barack Obama turning out to be a violent, gun toting mugger intent on raping white women. His real problem now is to start looking less like an Ivy League twit. It may not be easy, not after a lifetime of consciously assimilating himself to the culture of Ivy League twitdom, but it's something he must do -- and soon. He has to demonstrate that he is capable of real, down and dirty, testosterone laced aggression.
The fact is, though, that he can't demonstrate it against Hillary Clinton. A "real" man doesn't beat up on women -- not even women as formidable as Hillary. It's time for him to ignore Hillary (because real men are allowed to ignore women) and start consistently and systematically attacking John McCain. But how?
John McCain is not the sort of man who ever could be tarred with the brush of intellectualism. He has no connection to the Ivies, and graduated near the bottom of his class at West Point -- but that doesn't mean a populist attack on McCain can't work. McCain has flip-flopped like a beached mackerel since winning the Republican nomination. It shouldn't be hard to label McCain a sell-out -- a one-time maverick who's now in the pockets of the same mortgage bankers, oil company tycoons, and super-rich businessmen who are foreclosing, extorting, and cutting the jobs and wages of the rest of us.
The attacks should be personal, not generic. It's not enough to attack the financial elite -- Obama has to put aside his fastidious good manners and attack McCain himself. He has to forget all about McCain's war record and his age and anything else that might make him pull his punches. With luck, McCain even might lose his famous temper and say something stupid.
It's also time for Obama to drop the high-falutin' oratory about "coming together" and upgrading American political discourse. He's already cornered the market on what Bush Senior, in that same 1989 election, called "the vision thing," so it's time to move on. You can bet the Republican attack machine's political discourse will be just as brutal as it's ever been, and the only way to beat it is with a strong offensive.
Don't be a wimp, Barack. Hit hard, and hit now.
A woman competing in a testosterone infused environment, Hillary Clinton saw the need to demonstrate her, ah, manliness. It was that need more than anything else, I believe, that led her to vote in favor of authorizing GWB to invade Iraq. After all, saber rattling is a very manly activity, and those who demur might be considered, well, effeminate. We can't have some pansy leading the Free World, now -- can we?
And so Hillary never missed an opportunity to demonstrate that her lack of literal balls should not be construed as a lack of figurative balls. Yes, her political posturing did help to encourage the widespread suspicion that she might be a lesbian, but there was no helping that -- not if she ever was going to get a shot at the presidency.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, should have had the manliness thing sewn up. After all, in popular culture the black male is the very embodiment of unbridled male hormones. His problem, though, was exactly that -- our popularly conceived black man is entirely too scary to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review, much less President of the United States.
Obama found it necessary to cultivate his public image just as carefully as Clinton cultivated hers, except from an opposite perspective. He had to learn to be consistently calm, even tempered, and conciliatory. He had to eliminate any show of anger or aggression from his behavioral repertoire. Barack had to appear as "un-black" as Hillary appeared "un-feminine."
The result, as you must have noticed, is that Hillary out-machos Barack by a factor of three to one. She knocks back shots of whiskey while he's counting calories. I don't know if she could beat his bowling score, but now she doesn't even have to try. She even came up with a scenario for nuking Iran -- granted, a pretty far-fetched scenario where Iran nukes Israel first, but clearly that makes her a mensch. That schmekele Barack, though, won't even talk tough to Ahmedinijad. As it begins to look more and more like he'll be the Democratic candidate this Fall, Obama had better start dealing with what could be a serious problem.
It's commonly called "the wimp factor." Although the term was first used to accompany a photo of Bush Senior on the cover of Newsday in 1989, it's been a problem for many Democrats in the past. Think of Dukakis in the tank, Kerry windsurfing, even Adlai Stevenson offering his brilliant, intellectual analyses while the rest of America was chanting "I like Ike." Now think of how the press jumped all over Obama's allegedly "elitist" comments about the white working class from that speech he delivered in San Francisco last month.
Let's face it: there's nobody left in the United States who's really concerned about Barack Obama turning out to be a violent, gun toting mugger intent on raping white women. His real problem now is to start looking less like an Ivy League twit. It may not be easy, not after a lifetime of consciously assimilating himself to the culture of Ivy League twitdom, but it's something he must do -- and soon. He has to demonstrate that he is capable of real, down and dirty, testosterone laced aggression.
The fact is, though, that he can't demonstrate it against Hillary Clinton. A "real" man doesn't beat up on women -- not even women as formidable as Hillary. It's time for him to ignore Hillary (because real men are allowed to ignore women) and start consistently and systematically attacking John McCain. But how?
John McCain is not the sort of man who ever could be tarred with the brush of intellectualism. He has no connection to the Ivies, and graduated near the bottom of his class at West Point -- but that doesn't mean a populist attack on McCain can't work. McCain has flip-flopped like a beached mackerel since winning the Republican nomination. It shouldn't be hard to label McCain a sell-out -- a one-time maverick who's now in the pockets of the same mortgage bankers, oil company tycoons, and super-rich businessmen who are foreclosing, extorting, and cutting the jobs and wages of the rest of us.
The attacks should be personal, not generic. It's not enough to attack the financial elite -- Obama has to put aside his fastidious good manners and attack McCain himself. He has to forget all about McCain's war record and his age and anything else that might make him pull his punches. With luck, McCain even might lose his famous temper and say something stupid.
It's also time for Obama to drop the high-falutin' oratory about "coming together" and upgrading American political discourse. He's already cornered the market on what Bush Senior, in that same 1989 election, called "the vision thing," so it's time to move on. You can bet the Republican attack machine's political discourse will be just as brutal as it's ever been, and the only way to beat it is with a strong offensive.
Don't be a wimp, Barack. Hit hard, and hit now.
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Wrong Reverend Wright
Well, I told you so.
Back here, I called your attention to the Sean Hannity interview of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The broadcast networks hadn't noticed yet, and Wright coverage in the print media didn't exactly jump out at you. It seems the Obama campaign hoped it would just go away. It didn't.
When Wright's oratory went viral on YouTube and all the media began to pay attention, Obama had to respond. Nothing he could have said would have been good enough, of course. He couldn't totally disavow Wright without alienating his black base, and when you get right down to it, even a total disavowal wouldn't have done the trick -- he'd have appeared both disingenuous and disloyal.
Of course, he also couldn't say that he'd attended Wright's church to advance his political career in Chicago, where a Wright endorsement is a big plus. One of the biggest problems politicians face is that somebody who helps you today can turn out to be the proverbial albatross around your neck tomorrow.
Don't blame Hillary. She didn't create the Wright problem, she just accelerated it a bit. It's better for Barack to deal with it now, as best he can, before the Republican attack machine gets into high gear. After all, he'll still have to deal with the Tony Rezko mess, which hasn't gotten much play outside of Chicago yet (with the emphasis on "yet.")
Back here, I called your attention to the Sean Hannity interview of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The broadcast networks hadn't noticed yet, and Wright coverage in the print media didn't exactly jump out at you. It seems the Obama campaign hoped it would just go away. It didn't.
When Wright's oratory went viral on YouTube and all the media began to pay attention, Obama had to respond. Nothing he could have said would have been good enough, of course. He couldn't totally disavow Wright without alienating his black base, and when you get right down to it, even a total disavowal wouldn't have done the trick -- he'd have appeared both disingenuous and disloyal.
Of course, he also couldn't say that he'd attended Wright's church to advance his political career in Chicago, where a Wright endorsement is a big plus. One of the biggest problems politicians face is that somebody who helps you today can turn out to be the proverbial albatross around your neck tomorrow.
Don't blame Hillary. She didn't create the Wright problem, she just accelerated it a bit. It's better for Barack to deal with it now, as best he can, before the Republican attack machine gets into high gear. After all, he'll still have to deal with the Tony Rezko mess, which hasn't gotten much play outside of Chicago yet (with the emphasis on "yet.")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)