As I noted, I missed the start of Obama's speech, and at this point I won't feel confident commenting on it in full until I've had a chance to go back and catch up, which I might not do until tomorrow at this rate. I don't have Obama's stamina. It's been a long day, and tomorrow is Ash Wednesday. (That Obama sure knows how to celebrate Mardi Gras, huh? What a workaholic. It's after 10, and he's still going…)
But I thought I'd provide y'all with this space to share YOUR observations, so have at it…
Oh, yeah — you can read about it here and here and here.
Related Posts
It’s finally over… Obama’s working the room… Clyburn’s really hanging close, staying in the picture…
Speaking of Clyburn, still no word on the “hypocrisy” thing.
POTUS seems to be signing autographs. You can hear what he’s saying to folks on the NYT video… Just gave somebody an “aloha!”… You can really hear the people schoozing to beat the band. He just asked someone to “Keep me in your prayers,” which I liked. He can use it, as can we all…
I’ve going to go have a beer and hit the sack now…
I agree–with the prayer, that is. But you must be really tired, Brad, to say that “it’s finally over.” It was quite an interesting speech, I thought.
Obama also closed his speech with a prayer, “God bless America.” That could be just a trite way to close, one that is expected of Presidents, but judging from other things he has said, I don’t think it is. The man took several principles right out of Christian ethics.
I came away from the speech very proud of our African-American fellow citizens and minorities in general. May they lead us all in tackling problems that many of us have become complacent about.
Tax cuts for the many; taxes for the rich (250k is alot of dough); energy, health care, education as priorities; restoring the moral high ground to America all from a president who can offer critical and thoughtful analysis. Great job.
In terms of the republican reply, I was waiting for Jindal to put on a sweater and ask to be my neighbor. His reference to Katrina was baffling. The notion that government is bad coming from the governor whose state continues to benefit from their neighbors is pitifully opportunitistic and specious.
I think Sanford would have been a smart choice to give a reply so he could offer prayers for the unemployed he refuses to support.
Herb and Brad,
The president made an excellent speech and Bobby Jindal made a stupid response. Was our reaction to Katrina really a success story after all? It was to hear Jindal.
But Jindal doesn’t believe that the people are the government in action protecting their interests. Republicans talk about “limited” government.
And, in effect, that is what we have had with the result that the rich have gotten richer and Wall St., without regulation, is threatening to flush the entire economy down the toilet.
So what does Jindal propose?? More tax cuts. That’s what Hoover did during the first four years of the Republican Depression of 1929-1933 as he stepped over the starving bodies of the bonus army and trained his guns on the protesters in front of the White House.
What’s specious, Randy, is Obama promising to cut the deficit in half while he’s nationalizing health care, nationalizing education through college, giving 95 percent of Amerian’s tax cuts and raising taxes on only the richest 2 percent, all while he’s curing cancer and retooling the auto industry before our very eyes.
He’s a snake charmer, Randy. A medicine man. Sooner or later, Sheriff Reality is going to show up.
The Sheriff showed up tonight after 8 years of fiscal and overall irresponsibility.
The Sheriff showed up tonight after 8 years of fiscal and overall irresponsibility.
That sheriff was a member of a gang of fiscally and overall irresponsible outlaws for the last four years. So now that he is sheriff, expect more of the same lootin’ and shootin’ that we had with the last guy.
Birch, great comment and observation.
If interested, you might want to read the AP article, “FACT CHECK: Obama glosses over complex realities” just written by “CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers”.
It is time for a little reality from BOTH sides and for BOTH sides to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the problems we are facing today.
BOTH sides are responsible for Iraq, the economy, health care issues, and all of the inherent problems associated with a democracy. At the same time, BOTH sides are responsible for the good things we do as a country and I believe the good outweighs the bad any day of the week.
Reality is both pleasure and pain and facing the painful part is not easy but forgetting the pleasure part is easy when we allow ourselves to become so deeply ingrained in negatives 24/7.
I do not agree with Obama on most issues but as an American, it does make me proud to know that anyone no matter what their color or gender may be, can be elected to the highest and most powerful office in the world.
We will come out of this recession and facing reality, we will go through another one again in the not so distant future. They are cyclical and inevitable. Unfortunately, this one came much later than it should have. No one side has all of the answers but when one side has the majority of the power as is the present situation, they are the ones the people look to for answers and solutions. Fail and the people will look elsewhere in due time. Again, cyclical.
In a few years, no matter how well Obama may do, the pendulum will swing once again in the opposite direction, back to the right. It is the nature of humans to become discontent and seek change.
Bart,
Great observations about human nature and the inevitable cyclical nature of things. I must admit that I wonder about the reality of being able to afford everything we need to do plus a lot that we want to do–I’ve never been able to do that on a personal level, but then maybe I haven’t learned to save and scrimp where I needed to (can Congress do that?–I’m not sure–2 trillion $$ of savings?–interesting).
But I must admit that it is important to have a leader who is a clear communicator, and one who can inspire. Perhaps some of that is the context–personally, I thought having the little gal from SC on the program was a brilliant move.
I wish Obama well, and pray for him several times a day.
Words, just words.
In the end, they are just words from a man whos actions do not match his words.
I have to laugh at all this talk about the pendulum swinging back. Give us eight years and we’ll see.
The idea that the Democrats are responsible for the current crisis is absurd. Who was in charge from 2000-2008? Howard Dean?
Obama’s speech was what we’ve come to expect. It was inspiring, thoughtful, intelligent without condescension and full of hope for the future. So nothing new there. Obama’s getting to be boring he’s so good at this speech making stuff.
The real story of the night was the GOP response. OHHHH, MYYYYYY, GOSSSSSSHHH! This is what the Republican Party has come to? The reference to Katrina can only be described as something out of the twilight zone. There just simply are not words to describe how bizarre that was. To hold up Katrina as an example of why Government should get out of the way of the “free market” stands as perhaps the most stunning statement by a public official in American history.
Look, Bart, I agree that the pendulum does always swing, and certainly since one party currently holds the Presidency and the majority in both houses of Congress that party will properly be held accountable for the progress or lack thereof that the country makes in the next couple of years. And yes, Birch, Obama was a Senator for the last four years, albeit as a member of the minority party until the last two of those years.
Rich is correct, though. We may live in a country that has a collective memory of five minutes, that (at least until this last election) disparages education, knowledge, and intellect, but this is going too far even for this history-averse country, to somehow alter history to say that the mistakes of the last eight years are borne equally by both parties, as if both parties held equal power in that time.
For the record: GOP President all 8 years. GOP control of the House of Representatives 2001-2007, Democratic control the last 2 years only. Senate basically a tie 2001-2003, Republican control of the Senate 2003-2007, and Democratic majority only the last two years.
If you consider each 2-year Congressional term as a unit, the last eight years would contain twelve such “units of power”: 4 for the House, 4 for the Senate, and 4 for the two terms of the Presidency. By my count, that makes 9 “units of power” for the GOP since 2001, versus 2 UOP’s for the Democrats, and one tie. If you want to give that 2001-2003 Senate to the Dems based on independents caucasing with the Dems, that still makes it 9-3.
Those are the facts. Saying the Democratic party bears “equal” responsibility for the problems accrued since 2001 is just as absurd as saying that if things do not improve substantially between now and late 2010 that we should primarily blame the Republican Party.
Fantasy for a delusional audience that wants to hear lies.
He promises tax cuts to the 50% of tax return filers who already pay not taxes. They know he means handout checks, to buy their support.
He promises to cut waste, but the new budget bill already has 9,000 earmarks in it, and Obama dare not challenge Pelosi on her budget, just as he dared not challenger her extra spending bill of $787 billion.
He promises $2.3 Trillion in deficit spending this year, then says he will “be responsible” and balance the budget in 2 years. The interest alone on the exploding debt will consume all the income taxes in 2010.
He promises to create individual retirement accounts for “all my people”, and fund them with federal deficit money. How will he do this? By confiscating the 401-k and other retirement accounts of responsible individuals who worked and saved.
What he failed to talk about were:
* John Kerry’s brokering a secret deal to give $900,000,000 to Hamas.
* All the foreign thugs who are testing him and watching him back down.
* Democrats’ efforts to send President Bush, Dick Cheney and their aides to prison for trying to succeed at the war begun in Iraq by Democrats in 1998 and not prosecuted properly by Bill Clinton.
* Democrats blocking investigations of their failed mortgage programs which precipitated this economic recession.
This is a revolution. Racial and class retribution by an angry socialist who is becoming drunk with power.
Barack Obama has to be challenged, and stopped. He is becoming our Mussolini, or Robert Mugabe.
I do agree that Jindal’s response was middling to poor. Well, maybe not even middling. He came on more like he was already campaigning for president (can’t we have a breather for at least one year?!) than that he was engaging the issues.
Lee, I’d be a little careful with sentences like the last two. Just because Bush is no longer President doesn’t mean that there is not extensive monitoring of online communications. Anything that could be perceived as a physical threat or an incitement to same could be bad news for the source. I get a hoot from reading your comments here and would hate to see you get into any legal trouble. Seriously. Maybe just pull it back a notch.
There is a pattern forming with Obama. He makes a great speech which is followed by a PORKINGUS BILL. Let me break it down for my liberal friends who have difficulty with reality. Great speech followed by bad bill. I would prefer that he gave an ordinary or lousy speech and followed it up with a good bill.
Since the address last night was one of his best, it is easy to conclude that we are going to get a horrendus approbiations bill.
The appropriations bill will serve up 9,000 earmarks that suck up $410 billion, Richard. The Democrats are going on the biggest spending spree in congressional history at the time we can least afford it because they finally got the keys to the piggy bank.
Phillip, thanks for demonstrating that our economic demise only came along after the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. You defeated your own argument with stunning skill.
It is not a “physical threat” to call for Republicans, Libertarians, and all patriotic Americans to challenge the socialist ideology of the Democrat leadership, and to expose their agenda and their lies. Socialists are the ones threatening everyone with taxes, confiscation of assets, limits on free speech and travel.
Obama is LYING when he says we can send “every child to college” on tax money or deficit borrowing. A third to one half of students in many districts drop out of high school. They do not have an 8th grade education.
Obama is LYING when he says he can save money by seizing control of the healthcare industry. Medicare lost 31% of its budget last year to fraud. Let’s see him clean up Medicare and Medicaid fraud before he gets one iota of more power over our medical care.
Phillip,
You better have them monitor everything — Lee may be communicating offline too! Like the guy in Oklahoma City with a sign in his car that said “Abort Obama Not the Unborn.”
The SS swooped in on him last week like we’re in Nazi Germany.
This is America!
[btw, Bank of America stole that slogan from me and they KNOW it.]
We may live in a country that has a collective memory of five minutes, that (at least until this last election) disparages education, knowledge, and intellect, but this is going too far even for this history-averse country, to somehow alter history to say that the mistakes of the last eight years are borne equally by both parties, as if both parties held equal power in that time.
Well, you’re right. But just because the Democrats were the ones driving the getaway car instead of robbing the bank, doesn’t mean they should get off the hook.
And to the extent Obama or any other Democrat voted for the same irresponsible legislation as the Republicans, they do share equal blame.
But the fact is for the last two or three decades we have had massive budget deficits nearly every year. Over the same time period we have had relative economic prosperity except for a few recessions along the way. If we can’t run a budget surplus and pay down debt during years of economic prosperity, there’s no hope for this country. Both Republicans and Democrats have been in control of the White House and Congress throughout these years and thus both deserve the blame.
My point was made by the remarks from Phillip and Rich. Nothing more should be required but after their respones, again into the fray.
Did I mention or reference a time frame in my comments? No, I did not. If it is too much to ask for a fair and honest evaluation of the events leading up to the current situation, then any hope for bipartisan cooperation is out the window.
Fact: In 1998, Bill Clinton made it official policy of the United States to pursue regime change in Iraq.
Fact: Democrats led the way in 1998 and beyond in public rhetoric about the immediate and pending dangers of allowing a Saddam Hussein regime to remain in power.
Fact: Nancy Peolosi quote from 1998 – “As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq December 16, 1998………..”
Fact: On October 11, 2002, the Senate vote to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein was 77 yea, 23 nay. The balance in the Senate was 57 Republican to 42 Democrat and 1 Independent.
Fact: October 10, 2002, the House vote to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein was 296 yea, 133 nay. The balance in the House was 223 Republican to 208 Democrat and 1 Independent.
There are a lot more instances and quotes to support my contention that BOTH sides are equally responsible. If Democrats had refused to cast a vote in favor of going into Iraq, you would have a case.
Excerpt from the AP report written last night after Obama’s speech:
OBAMA: “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”
THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn’t only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation….”
Fact: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill deregulating the banking industry was initiated by Bill Clinton, backed by Bill Clinton, and signed into law by Bill Clinton. According to the FACT CHECK presented by AP after Obama’s speech last night, they contradicted his previous claims that the current financial problems are the sole responsibility of Republicans and the Bush administration. They referenced the enactment of this bill as the vehicle which brought us to this point. In case you are interested, the vote was 90 yea, 8 nay in the Senate; 362 yea, 57 nay in the House. At that time the balance in the Senate was 55 Republican and 45 Democrat. The House was 222 Republican, 211 Democrat and 1 Independent.
As far as your exercise in UOPs, you need to take one thing into account before depending on their actual value. If Republicans had a super majority, then the value of the unit would have been great enough to offset any power Democrats had during the 8 year period. The truth is that Democrats had enough power to stop any legislation they chose to stop. They used their filibuster power to prevent nominations from reaching the floor for debate and voting. They used the same power to stop legislation from reaching the floor for debate and voting. Just like the stimulus bill, it took 3 Republicans crossing over for it to pass. Now, the bill belongs to Senate Republicans just as much as it does Senate Democrats. The House is a different story because Republicans do not have enough power to prevent any bill Democrats introduce from passing.
Fact: House hearings on additional oversight and regulations requested by the Bush administration in 2003 were rebuffed by Democrats with accusations of racism, lynching, and accusations of being against poor people. There was not enough support from the committee to get to the floor for a vote. BOTH sides were complicict in this decision because there were some Republicans who wouldn’t fight against the Democrats. Bush had no gonads on this one and if he had been so convinced they were necessary, he would have continued pushing for them. Plus, in 2003, the Senate was controlled by Democrats and even if a bill had made it out of committee, there was no way it would have passed.
All of this is interconnected and each side is guilty of political grandstanding for their constituents. After all, it is called POLITICS!!!
The difference this time is that if Al Franken is declared the winner in Minnesota, Democrats will have complete control of the American people. Democrats will have the freedom to pass any legislation they wish without interference or opposition from the other side which will be immensly pleasing to Rich and bud.
Democrats will be nothing short of an elected dictatorship.
If your ideology blinds you to the truth of events leading up to this point, anything put forth that is not in tune with it is ignored and branded as absurd.
I put this before you not in defense of Republicans but to point out that not much happened in Washington that was not approved by BOTH sides.
Sorry for the misspelled words. Should have been “responses” and I am sure there are one or two more in there somewhere.
The root cause of our economic recession is the bank failures caused by mortgage fraud, committed with the encouragement of Democrats through their control of FMAE and FMAC.
The huge deficits are not due to military spending. The increased revenues generate by the small Bush tax rate reductions for EVERY TAXPAYER actually spurred enough economic growth and increased tax revenues to pay for war on terrorism and to balance the budget.
The deficits and increased debt are due soley and entirely to massive increases in social welfare programs. The Democrats proposed running deficits in 2001 through 2006 that were twice as large as those passed. In 2007 and 2008, the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, and they ran deficits which will probably final total $1.7 Trillion for those 2 years.
The Democrats’ 2009 deficits will be at least $1.3 trillion.
Ya know, I just have to smile when people from one side or the other try to say it’s all THAT party’s fault, and those from the other side feel compelled to argue it the opposite way. Either that (smile) or cry.
Thanks, Bart, for pointing out that neither argument works.
All that matters is, what should we do? Not which party, or even which individuals (which would be far more relevant) got us here, but what do we do? That should always be the question.
Not having had time to go back and watch the whole thing after missing the start, my general impression is that the president did a good job in his speech. And while yeah, as I said, I was tired last night, even if I hadn’t been, I’d be impressed by how energetic and undaunted and determined this new president is.
I also worry that even if he can herd the cats in BOTH parties toward enacting his proposals, right down the line (and BOTH parties need to get over themselves and pitch in, dropping their ideological garbage and helping the president in his bid to lead us in directions that both parties in some ways oppose), it’s not going to be enough to pull us out of this economic tailspin.
One story in the WSJ today pulled all the latest trends together in a way that certainly ought to keep us up nights: a) consumer confidence at the lowest level since we’ve been measuring it; b) an all-time high number of citizens expecting their income to drop (and that’s only a fourth of respondents thinking that, which makes me suspect the other three-quarters are deluding themselves); home prices dropped in the third quarter by the largest amount ever in the 18 years THAT number has been tracked; d) federal officials predict unemployment’s going to be “much higher” than previously estimated…
Kind of makes all the back-and-forth about “my party’s better than your party” seem a little silly, doesn’t it?
It certainly does to me.
Brad, I guess you can make comments like these when YOUR guy whom YOU endorsed twice was in the White House while the economic meltdown was in progress. Spare me this crap. The GOP was mostly in charge and damn it they need to be held accountable. Given their sorry ass performance I find it disturbing that anyone can still find some justification in pursuing this bipartisan nonsense. Let’s just do what will work. And that ain’t what the GOP proposes which is simply more tax cuts. Have you even read the stuff folks like Jim DeMint are proposing? You can’t work with someone like that. They’re living in some sort of Herbert Hoover time warp. The Dems just need to craft workable and effective legislation then pass it, with or without help from the obstructionists across the aisle.
Case in point. (Sigh.)
OK, bud, I give up, let’s do it your way. Let’s hold those goddamned wicked Republicans “accountable.” What do you propose we do? Whip them? Put them in the stocks? Anything short of summary executions, I’m your man. Let’s do it.
Just one thing, though — could we do it in a hurry, and put this idiocy behind us, and actually start trying to solve the country’s problems for a change, instead of continuing to play this STUPID game?
What do you think has changed? NOTHING HAS CHANGED! As long as the idiots who run these two parties manage to convince you that all that matters is winning the daily spin cycle drivel argument, rather than accomplishing anything, everything is going to continue to be just as it has been, whether Bush or Clinton or Bush or Obama is in the White House, and no matter which stupid party has momentary control of the House and Senate. When it’s all about the conflict, and never about the resolution — and that’s what it is for Pelosis and Jindals and Clyburns and Sanfords — they win because they get to keep playing their game, and ALL OF THE REST OF US LOSE!!!!!!!
What about this is so fricking hard to understand? I’m at a loss here, people…
… and BOTH parties need to get over themselves and pitch in, dropping their ideological garbage and helping the president in his bid to lead us in directions that both parties in some ways oppose.
-Brad
What you call “ideological garbage” is actually differing perspectives on what is needed to address the issues of the nation. To fight for what believes in is not a bad thing. To compromise on one’s principals for the sake of bipartisanship is, in my view, reprehensible if you have the votes to pass good legislation without compromising. The Dems are by no means united on every issue, nor are the Republicans, but the two sides of the aisle are probably more different by party affiliation that at any time in our history. They just don’t believe in the same course of action the nation should take. And right now about 60% of congress believes the correct course of action is A and 40% believe it is B. Since A is bigger than B there is no need to reach across the aisle. Besides, Obama tried and was rejected so what is the point in pursuing that futile strategy. To do so would be to snub the voters.
Just one thing, though — could we do it in a hurry, and put this idiocy behind us, and actually start trying to solve the country’s problems for a change, instead of continuing to play this STUPID game?
-Brad
Absolutely we should do this in a hurry. Let’s craft the legislation and vote. No filibusters. No delaying tactics. No stupid games as you call it. Just vote. And if a majority in both houses says yes and POTUS signs it then it becomes law.
What do you think has changed? NOTHING HAS CHANGED! As long as the idiots who run these two parties manage to convince you that all that matters is winning the daily spin cycle drivel argument, rather than accomplishing anything, everything is going to continue to be just as it has been, whether Bush or Clinton or Bush or Obama is in the White House, and no matter which stupid party has momentary control of the House and Senate. When it’s all about the conflict, and never about the resolution — and that’s what it is for Pelosis and Jindals and Clyburns and Sanfords — they win because they get to keep playing their game, and ALL OF THE REST OF US LOSE!!!!!!!
Totally agree.
Unfortunately, anyone who agrees with this statement and yet still voted for any of the partisan hacks running the country needs only to look in the mirror to find the person to blame.
Anyone who endorsed any of these partisan hacks in a major newspaper needs only to look in the mirror to find the person to blame.
A lot of us critics of socialist Democrats are not Republicans, Brad, so stop your copping out of the discussion by dismissing us as “partisans”. We are objective. We lay blame on liberals like President Bush, and spineless moderates in both parties for laying down or cutting deals with the aggressive corruption of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Schumer and their ilk.
Not following you, Birch — I guess because I think in terms of real-world decisions and not abstractions.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that we should never endorse anyone with an R or D after his name, which means we would never endorse anyone, which means we would IGNORE the fact that ONE of these candidates (in each case) IS going to be elected. I won’t do that because it would be grossly irresponsible. Even if the choice is between bad and worse, we need to state as clearly as we can which one we think is merely bad. To just say “a pox upon them all” is irresponsible; it’s a copout.
And in the recent election, we didn’t think that at all. For the first time in my professional life, we were faced with TWO candidates for president that I liked, respected and admired in the general election — and my colleagues shared my opinion. Neither one was a “partisan hack,” despite all the best (or perhaps I should say, worst) efforts of their respective parties to pull them down into the mire at every opportunity.
So of course we endorsed one of them (as we had in fact endorsed BOTH of them in their respective primary contests), and expressed our regret we couldn’t endorse both.
And now that we’ve elected one of these fine men, I want him to succeed in leading the country in dealing with the profound challenges that he faces, and I’ll continue to vehemently oppose any efforts by ideologues from either party to undermine that success.
I am not convinced that the stimulus packages as presently conceived will work but I can’t say that I do know what will. Blame for a worldwide economic meltdown like this cannot be laid at the feet of a single individual or group as we should have learned in the aftermath of 1929. Finger pointing gets no one anywhere. I think that the direction in which Obama wishes to lead the country may well be counterproductive but, if it is, the country’s center will move slowly back towards small government fiscal conservatism. That is the way a representative democracy tends to work, by fits and starts ebbs and flows but generally, over time in a forward direction.
I think what Bud is getting at is that this is not a non-partisan blog. And let’s be honest here, Mr. Warthen, it’s not.
And that’s okay. Given this part of the country, I wouldn’t expect it to be anything else, but either center, or more-than-center right. But it’s on the wrong side of history I think, and comparing Bobby Jindal to Jim Clyburn is truly unhelpful at best.
The truth is the pendulum swung too far to the right and it’s time it went the other way for awhile. It’s the hallmark of US politics as Arthur Schlesinger explained years ago, the ebb and flow of progressivism and conservatism, of new ideas and old tradition. And that is the purest form of democracy.
It’s our time now, and will be for some time to come. The country needs it, and needs it badly. I also disagree with your notion that nothing has been accomplished since Mr. O. took office. He’s done a lot thus far. And he’s just warming up. And if the abysmal performance of Mr. Jindal is any indication, he’s got 7 years, 11 months ahead of him.
I had hoped that this blog could have been a bit more edifying in it’s approach, but sadly it more than reflects…well….a verbal right wing talk radio dittohead fest if you will, populated by the same sorts of characters that call in day after day to reiterate the same moldy things; an echo chamber within a synchrotron, casting out the same noises ad infinitum.
However, these positions, or lack thereof, are merely reflective of the sclerotic, hidebound ideologies of the powerbrokers within this state in which we live, making little room for the Ty’Sheoma Bethea’s of the world (remember her?) and instead lauding the intellectual inferiorities of the Bobby Jindal/Sarah Palin set.
To be honest, I’ve been surprised that Mr. Warthen has been able to say he likes Obama without someone trying to burn down the whole building in which he works.
So while I do wish you luck, I’m not hopeful for the prospects. And as such, I think I’ll go down front and see what’s happening in the rest of the country.
When it’s all about the conflict, and never about the resolution — and that’s what it is for Pelosis and Jindals and Clyburns and Sanfords — they win because they get to keep playing their game, and ALL OF THE REST OF US LOSE!!!!!!!
Brad, correct me if I’m wrong (and I could be), but didn’t you endorse Clyburn — the one playing game where “all the rest of us lose?”
Also, are you implying that I do not think in terms of real-world solutions?
The way I see it, if we do not vote for (or endorse) R or D and make it clear that the reason we did not do so was because we’re tired of them playing their “game” with each other, then maybe they’ll remember that and CHANGE so as to win back those votes and endorsements in the following election.
Where’s the incentive for the partisans to change when all they have to do to win is make sure they paint the other guy as worse than they are?
You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Republicans lost your trust — and rightly so.
Obama and the socialists are running a scorched Earth policy. They don’t intend to leave anything for a pendulum swing back after they wreck some more of the economy.
They are destroying the banking system,
destroying retirement savings,
destroying investment through the stock markets,
destroying charity,
destroying private medical care,
destroying small businesses,
legalizing millions of illegal aliens.
Sanford calls Rush an “idiot”. His credibility has been restored!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/sanford-rush-limbaugh-is_n_170041.html
Bart wrote, and I emphasize, “If Al Franken is declared the winner in Minnesota, Democrats will have complete control of the American people. Democrats will have the freedom to pass any legislation they wish without interference or opposition from the other side.”
I remember when my Uncle Buck, whose real name was Joe, sat in a wheelchair talking to me in the hallway of a nursing home. The pitiful peals of old women’s screams choired horrifically behind his hoarse voice.
“Boy,” he said. “I sho never figured I would end up like this.”
But he did.
And so it appears to be with America.
While I sympathize with Brad’s concern that the two major parties come together and be reasonable, this is just not US history. Democracy is less about establishing consensus and more about our ability to compromise in spite of the ideological posturing that all political parties inevitably make.
E.g., much as I love Obama as president, his statements about clean coal are complete nonsense. Still, his willingness to keep his cool, listen, reach across the aisle, and still hold true to the reasons why he was elected have shown within his first month that this is a man who is up to the task of riding herd on what has always been a raucous, loud, bombastic, and frustrating representative democracy bequeathed to us with bated breath and high hopes by the Founders.
As a US history teacher, I often draw inspiration from our founding documents, among which are the Federalist Papers. They are by no means an easy read today. The convoluted sentence structure, the assumptions, the pontification–the sheer political hot air–sometimes make these essays a difficult read. But if there is one thing we should take away from them is that the Founders were not know-it-alls. They worked things out through argumentation and compromise, much as we do now.
Brad despairs of the lack of bipartisanship and the evident inability of the two major parties to engage in grand-standing, politicking, mutual recrimination, and accusations. All this, to me, is evidence of a vibrant democratic republic. We’re starting to see as much in Iraq. Their politicians seem to be doing much the same, and while some despair of their ever making progress, the very fact that they fight, argue, accuse, demand, despair, and fulminate is evidence of freedom in action. All that drama lays the groundwork for the inevitable compromise that the major parties will make in parliament, in Congress, and in smoke-filled cloakrooms.
While I would never have voted for the war in Iraq, if that cloud has one silver lining, it is that the Iraqis are creating a loud, crude, raucous, posturing, inefficient, blow-hard, inefficient democratic republic in which the various interests at the end of the day are learning to do exactly what we Americans do so well: hold fast with religious certainty to our principles while inevitably compromising with our opponents, retreating to our corners, and living in peace to fight vigorously in the political arena without recourse to firearms (except that the Iraqis have added the charming practice of shooting their rifles into the air as a display of intransigeant macho emotion that surely must warm the heart of the NRA–may they soon establish a Baghdad chapter!
Fear not, Brad, we’ll get through it. For all of its faults, the Constitution that the Founders bequeathed to us will get us through this crisis as with all the others–and our loud, crude, rude, and dogmatic brothers on the Tigris and Euphrates as well.
A generation from now, Iraqi students will be reading the Federalist Papers in their schools and learning to work it all out as we have for the last 233 years.
Hail Mary and Bless You, Lee Muller. Your facts and direct points are a powerful reminder of how Americans spoke and believed in the 1940s and 1950s America.
The pollution and cultural relativity duffosity of the 60s and 70s and now the perverted 2000s are the problems: the poor minds of the other commentators on this blog are so polluted with this gibberish, such intelligence gone to waste, like having beautiful girls cleaning toilets.
While I understand that emotions are running high, the following was passed along to me by a political science professor at Sewanee (yes Brad and i were both educated in Tennessee but don’t hold that against us). I have run across it occasionally and it always makes me smile.
http://www.lifeisajoke.com/politics15_html.htm
Let me just acknowledge Bart’s detailed response to my comment by saying I agree with many of his points…however, I got a chuckle out of his saying that because 3 Senate Republicans voted for the stimulus, that it now “belongs” to the Senate Republicans as much as it does the Democrats.
If the economy does not improve, or if things get markedly worse, will the Republicans be held responsible because of that. Of course not, nor should they be.
I’ll continue to vehemently oppose any efforts by ideologues from either party to undermine that success.
-Brad
This is just so frustrating to read stuff like this. You are most definitely undermining Obama with all this bipartisan happy talk. You need to endorse his program if you want him to succeed, not create some sort of strawman based on bipartisanship. The Dems are in the majority and can only pass legislation if they are united. Why? Because the Republicans have created a monolithic block that will oppose the president’s plans. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt here and acknowledge it’s because they hold strong convictions for their stated positions. But to label either side as ideological partisans is to miss the point. I suggest Brad that in order to move the president forward you should support the president and reject the opposition position, not because it is the partisan thing to do but because it is the right thing to do.
bud,stop frustrating yourself.The Bradenburg Bipartisan Variations are an integral part of The State…
Bud, not all but some situations the country finds itself in are like a Y intersection on a highway, you’ve either got to take the exit to the left or the one to the right. We’re hurtling down the highway at 80 miles an hour and here it comes, we gotta pick. We might end up going the right direction or the wrong direction, but let’s go with the majority view of the occupants of the car.
Brad, on the other hand, sometimes seems determined to smash his car into the pylons in the center divider between the exits.
The vehicle carrying America, known as Statism and driven by Congress, drunk with power, long ago took the wrong fork in the road. Every turn and fork down this Road to Ruin is a bad choice.
The only prudent thing to do is to turn around and drive back to the point before we embarked on all this socialism, back before income taxes and welfare programs, and get back on the Road to Prosperity, in a new vehicle, called Capitalism, driven by The Entreprenuer.
Phillip,
Glad I could bring some amusement into your day. We all need a chuckle at times.
I stand by my contention because 3 Republicans voted for the bill, it belongs to Republicans as much as it does the Democrats. The game of politics was played with this bill like no other in recent memory.
First, there was never a doubt about passage of the bill. The House passed it without any Republican votes and a few Democrats defected. It was safe for Republicans to vote no because of the Democrat majority in the House. If the balance in the House had been a lot closer and Republican votes required to pass the bill, you can be assured of just enough crossovers to get it through.
The Senate vote was another issue. On the surface, Republican votes were needed. The highly publicized courtship dance started in earnest and within a couple of days, after a head count, everyone knew there were enough votes and most Republicans could vote against it, knowing their votes wouldn’t prevent passage.
It was not as much of a gamble for the Republicans as you might think. It was never a game of “chicken” or a head-on collision between the parties that would actually derail the bill. The few compromises were cosmetic and had no impact on the outcome. The 3 Republicans were always going to vote yea.
This bill was NEVER going to fail in either house. If the balance in the Senate had been 51 to 49, rest assured that 9 Republicans would have found sufficient justification to vote for it. The same for the House.
The bill was sold as an imperative for the survival of our country. Both sides agreed something had to be done. Every politician in Washington knew it. Failure to pass the bill was not an option. At the same time, it presented an opportunity for each side to re-establish their identity. Now, the lines are pretty clear and a bill that will do something, one way or the other.
Over the years, I have dined at too many restaurants in and around Washington and Georgetown to believe there is a great divide between the parties inside the Beltway. Opponents on the floor, friends at the dinner table.
This is a community of 535 individuals who share a common thread. They do talk to each other across party lines. They do exchange ideas and votes across party lines. Most if not all of the work has been done before it gets to the floor for discussion and voting. It is not something new.
I want to clarify one thing about my post. I based some of my comments on my previous experiences in Washington over a 20 year period. It has been about 4 years since I spent much time there. Understanding how circumstances can change quickly and I may be laboring under a misconception of how they are now.
Another empirical argument for term limits.
I am continually amazed at the Republican reaction to the president’s speech! Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to criticize him for social spending when what have been doing over the last 8 years is wasting so much money on the military and tax cuts for the rich!!
Bush would have had a balanced budget every year if he had not increased social welfare spending so much.
Pelosi and Reid, after gaining control in 2006, piled up more debt in 2 years than in the previous 6. All Pelosi’s deficits were to bail out Clinton’s failed social welfare programs like mortgages for unqualified blacks and illegal aliens, or for new social welfare programs.
Obama will pile up as much debt this year alone as all the combined debt 2001 – 2007, even with reduced military spending. All Obama’s deficits are to bail out Clinton’s failed social welfare programs like mortgages for unqualified blacks and illegal aliens, or for new social welfare programs.
You know I really shouldn’t add insult to injury for Rich, but it is very good to see that the Obama campaign encourages religious participation in helping to deal with the issues facing us. Looks like Rick Warren’s wasn’t the last prayer.
Rich, the facts belie your statement. Military spending is INCREASING under Obama.
And any blind hog nosing for an acorn ought to be able to see that Obama’s orgy of throwing money that we don’t have toward his supporters has a good chance to create a depression that will make 1929 look pale.
As I heard Alan Keyes say today, Obama is a “communist” who “will destroy America” unless he’s stopped.
Based on what I’ve seen so far, I’d say there’s as good a chance that’s his goal as the economic recovery he’s giving lip servce to. I think he’s a lot more like the good Rev. Wright than anyone wants to admit.
Until Republicans stop being stupid, they won’t get re-elected. I do fear that we may be facing the death of the two-party system if the Republicanistas take a hard turn toward the fanatical religious right and the conservative racists that have always lurked at the party’s ignorant base.
The President of Iran is widening boulevards in central Tehran for the convenience of the twelfth Imam when he appears in the Shi’ite version of the End Times; how is this different from Republicans supporting extremism in Israel in hopes of tearing down the Al-Aqsa Mosque and rebuilding the great Jewish temple of Solomon??
Republicans like to read the “Left Behind” series. What they need to realize is that they have truly been left behind and should either join the mainstream or withdraw into their churchly temples of ignorance, superstition, prejudice, and fanaticism.
Rich,
From what you say, only Republicans and conservatives are racists who read the Bible and the “Left Behind” series while waiting for the “Rapture”. Is that correct? They are superstitious, ignorant, prejudiced, and fanatical, right?
When was the last time you checked out the religion of most African Americans, most Hispanics – world wide, and people of color in general? If I am not mistaken, most of them do adhere to the same or similar religious beliefs as Herb and some others on this blog practice. Obama is most certainly a man of color and he professes to be a practicing Christian, so does his wife.
Now, considering your almost fanatical adversion to anything religious, does this mean you turn your back on the very people you profess to feel safe with? Does this mean that you reject Obama and his “superstitious” beliefs and reject his call for prayer to help end the economic problems we face?
Or do you just “tolerate” these poor, ignorant souls you claim to care about and contend with their silly superstitions until you have the opportuntity to “show them the way out of darkness”?
Well?
Rich knows that Obama is not a Christian.
Obama uses religion as a prop and a shield.
Obama and the Democrats are attacking religion with their removal of tax deductions for charity. They see hospitals, clinics, and ministries to the poor as competition for government programs.
Progressives and other socialists seek to replace private charity and compassion with vulgar handout programs financed by unfair taxes on the most productive and charitable members of society.
Well, I sure hope that Birch is right that Rich writes with “tongue in cheek,” plus extreme hyperbole and a few other figures of speech as well:
Rich likes to take the extremist views of a few evangelicals and pin them on all of us, and not satisfied with that, he wants to pin them on the whole Republican party as well. I would venture to guess that most Republicans don’t have all that much interest in theology.
I would be tempted to present a lecture in evangelical eschatological beliefs and survey the whole spectrum from post-millenialism to a-millenialism, including post-tribulational pre-millenialism to mid-trib pre-millenialism to pre-trib premillenialism (Rich has taken the extremist part of the pre-trib premillenialists and dumped them on us all), but then I don’t have time, and nobody would read it.
What I’m actually pleading for is some more reality on the part of all of us.
Herb,
I put my faith in God,not religion.Dated a married Lutheran minister years ago;too much hypocrisy to handle…
Ever hear that saying?-
Religion is for people who’re afraid of going to hell,spirituality is for those who’ve already been there.
Gayguy,
Your comment is on the money, to a certain extent. In a sense, I know of nothing more boring–and hypocritical–that religion. I know of nothing more uplifting than Christ.
The problem is, all of us have to live out our faith in the middle of hypocrisy, both of our own, and others. Which is why church is still a good thing, with all of its faults. The New Testament view of the the “perfect” person, the one God designed us to be, is a unity, a composite. No one person has all the answers; no one person has all the gifts. And sometimes our tensions with church are not only caused by others’ hypocrisy, but by our own unwillingness to be challenged and change.
While we’re mentioning Luther, here’s a quote from his Treatise Concerning Good Works:
What we actually have, across the board, from atheist creed of faith (Rich) to the evangelical creed of mine to the far out corners of every other faith creed is a serious problem with idolatry: as Pastor Tim Keller says, “we make good things into ultimate things.” We look to nice experiences, to romances, to all kinds of good and bad things, even to a fascination with moral goodness, for justification. Our real belief is shown in our actions: as someone has said: “if we cheat on our taxes, then we show that God is not nearly as important to us as our money, which is another form of idolatry.”
Every person and every group has its own idols. The Democrats have theirs, and the Republicans have theirs (even James Kennedy took the Republicans to task for their unbridled greed in a sermon preached, I believe, right after the election of Bush in 2000–I remember watching it on TV at my Mom’s, who was ardent Republican and James Kennedy fan).
Simone Weill put it this way (and this pertains not only to Rich’s view, but to all of us): “One has only the choice between God and idolatry. If one denies God . . . one is worshiping some things of this world in the belief that one sees them only as such, but in fact, though unknown to oneself, imagining the attributes of Divinity in them.”
I hope your quest of faith, and mine, leads us to the right Ultimate.
Herb,
I have no doubt we’ll reach the “right Ultimate”,and I still attend church or mass occasionally(my partner’s Catholic,but I’m not a “believer”;we don’t argue about it).I love the music.
As far as Atheism goes,that’s the most dogmatic religion of them all:-)
Herb,
Another one-
If God is dead,he surely must be in Heaven.
Atheism is not a dogmatic religion; it is the absence of belief in the supernatural based on the observation that there is inadequate empirical evidence to support the proposition that God exists.
That’s not dogmatism; that’s rational philosophy. You present evidence and reasoning for your proposition and I make a reasoned judgment concerning its veracity. Period.
I might add that the ball is always in your court, not mine. I don’t have to disprove your religion; you have to prove yours. Good luck! See if you come up with the kind of evidence for God that astronomers have for black holes!
This is why I find religious language injected into politics ultimately so completely fruitless. Leave it out as a reason for public policy. If you introduce it, I will ridicule it.
With the hats, the vestments, the incense, the all-male choirs, the mysteries, the candles–it’s all just so irrational.
I prefer sitting comfortably in my easy chair with a cup of coffee in the morning and my State paper.
That’s the life!!
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. – Hebrews 11:1.
Religion is not about proof, Rich, but atheism must needs be, though such proof is undoable.
You can’t prove there is no God. You can’t even prove there are no Great Auks, though no one has seen one of the birds since the mid-19th century and reported it to the Great Auk authorities.
Heck, on some parallel world, the Great Auk may flourish, and back in this universe, the God you haven’t seen may be vacationing beneath some Jovian sea making plans to confuse you.
Then, too, it could be that God exists for some people, but not for others.
So you must have faith that God does not exist, which makes atheism your religion, evidenced by your frequent preaching of it here.
Now if you wanted to call yourself an agnostic, that would be something else.
But no, you want to ridicule religious language in public policy, and thus bring ridicule needlessly upon yourself.
Really, does something else sum up the law better than the Golden Rule? I cant find fault with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The Constitution grants Americans freedom of religion, Rich. What makes you think you’re big enough to take it away?
Rich,
Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The documents maintain it, and their witness is unified (containing minor points of disagreement, the same kind of points I expect in different witnesses to the same event, each with a bit different viewpoint). The authorities that be were powerless to contradict it, even though they had ample reason to do so. In fact, they had such interest in doing so that they would have paid any amount of money to produce a corpse and shut down the whole thing. Instead, it spread within a few decades from an obscure town in an outlying province to points all over the Roman empire.
And even a skeptic like J. A. T. Robinson had to admit that the NT documents are early productions, much within the time frame of the eyewitnesses.
Of course, you cannot, in the nature of things, repeat historical events. They are not scientific theories based on what we think that we see; they are events. And it is in these events that God has broken into our sandbox.
Once it becomes quite plausible that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, a lot of other things fall into place. One can, of course, pretend not to notice the above, and keep playing with one’s toys in the sandbox, claiming that sand is all there is, was, and ever more shall be. But that is a statement of faith, and not a very good one at that, especially when it seems evident that someone may have put the sandbox there, rather than it having come into existence by accident.
The real scientific test comes when individuals reach out in faith to put the above historical facts into practice in their own life, and find that Christ is real, and transforms people. They find that they become motivated to make a difference in their world. Some of them may achieve notoriety, such as a Wilberforce or a Clara Barton or a M. L. King. Others will not, but that is not relevant.
Other religions have conflicting claims, because for one thing they do not stand up under the test of historical reality. There are legitimate grounds to question, for example, historical events in the life of Muhammad. For one thing, it’s most reliable history was written over 200 years later. Add the historical criticism of a Patricia Crone, and we have real questions about many things claimed about Muhammad.
Jesus lives, as prophesied hundreds of years before hand, and as happened in 30 A.D.
You are greatly mistaken. But criticize all you want–I have learned that there is the most hope for those who react strongly against God, much more so than for the apathetic.
I will pray for you.
Pray away!! If it makes you feel good, righteous, holy, and better than a poor non-believer like me, go right ahead. Faith should be a personal matter, not a basis for public policy except in the most generous acceptation of the word.
I bring MLK into my discussion not because he believed that the Bible pointed the only way to salvation (who cares if he believed in that, the Great Auk, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster), but because he held the morality of the New Testament up to a nation that claimed to believe in it yet refused to practice it. How could segregation, Jim Crow, the oppression of minorities, hunger, disease, and any manner of social justice be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus, particularly the command that we love one another? It was the cognitive dissonance induced in Americans on a massive scale that caused us to recognize that we weren’t living up to the ideals in either our founding documents or in the Bible (although the OT has some pretty bloodthirsty passages in it that are inconveniently unsupportive of progressive causes or civil rights; e.g., I’d hate to be executed for picking up sticks on the sabbath).
To the extent that religion support the values and ideals ALREADY PRESENT in our founding documents and in positive law, its use to inspire people to push for social justice is inoffensive.
But when you use it publicly to tell me that Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, evolutionists, abortionists, homosexuals, stem-cell researchers–or whomever else the Christian Right sees fit to hate on–are all going to hell unless they repent and that government should somehow suppress the right to choose, gay rights, the teaching of evolution, or even the free exercise of religion by Muslims and Mormons, then I have to tell you to put your religion aside and stop being such a hater!
The Founders wisely separated religion from the state. We need to keep it that way. When you discuss public policy on this blog, spare us the lengthy screeds, the white noise of religious b*llshit, and your personal beliefs about Jesus and evident unwillingness to understand that the act of believing something need not necessarily be grounded upon the sand of religious faith.
My rock is rationalism–reason, science, philosophy, and anything empirical. I know, for instance, that there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy, not because I read it in some holy book, but because science can prove it empirically.
It requires no hymns, no incense, no mystery, no priests in gayly colored robes and hats.
No, my beliefs are based upon empiricism. As I told my father recently, I have 2000 books in my house written by a great variety of authors in a number of different fields. Not one of them ever asked me for money and not one of them ever demanded that I believe them on faith for fear of damnation.
That’s a fundamental difference between reason and religious NONSENSE.
Keep the faith crap out of our discussions!!!!
You don’t have discussions, Rich. You make pronouncements.
You don’t discuss. You preach.
And that black hole won’t save your soul, though it may trouble it.
Let me serenade you with one of those hateful hymns:
When we’ve been there 10,000 years
Bright shining as the sun
We’ll have no less days
To sing God’s praise
Than when we had first begun.
That’s the last verse of Amazing Grace in the Methodist Hymnal, Rich. It’s the best expression of infinity I’ve ever seen.
Find some hate in it for me, please. Or a priest wearing a hat.
Your anti-religious obsession continues to destroy your credibility.
I’m sorry that you think I hate, Rich.
I’m sorry that you think I feel more righteous, holy, or whatever, because I don’t.
I’m sorry that I can’t seem to get across to you that I don’t intend to support the suppression the law-abiding rights of anyone in this country, even though I reserve the right, like all citizens, to speak my voice in the public square as those laws are formed or changed.
OK, yell me at me for the latter. It won’t change anything. I’m still going to do it, unless, of course, my right to free speech is curtailed. Right now I still have it.
And most of all, I intend to keep on conversing civilly, as I can, about the Ultimate, with those who care to converse. But I’ll try not to bother you, and refrain from addressing your comments.
Rich knows you don’t hate, Mr. Brasher.
Rich hates.
Rich hates you, he hates Christianity, he hates morality and accomplishment.
Liberalism involves a lot of self-loathing, projected onto those they envy.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
http://blanket.ws