In the Crosshairs

I have written before about the deplorable state of political discourse in this country. In fact I'd like to start out with a paragraph from a piece I wrote a couple of months ago: 

"The real problem with this open animosity is that it allows the actual issues of the day to be pushed to the side in an all out attempt to win. You see the idea that the end of the world is nigh becomes the driving force behind all political action. Politicians use the most extreme language to describe the opposition in order to evoke a visceral reaction from their followers. The actual policies are not the important thing, the most important thing that voters take away from these demagogues is that if the opposition wins, their lives as they know it will be over. I could get into more complicated explanations about the backlash of white males and the similarities to the strategies employed by Nixon in '68 and even more forcefully in '72, but there really is no need. Both parties are guilty of overuse of hyperbole in describing the repercussions to America should their opponents be victorious in the next election."

The tragedy in Arizona over the weekend has given us all another chance to sharpen our collective rhetorical knives and start attacking the other side. The problem, once again, is that the issue, the real issue is being lost. The issue that should be at the forefront is how was this nut was able to 1) legally buy a gun and 2) buy one that held a 30 bullet clip. His attack was finally stopped when he had to reload that gun. What exactly are the gun laws in Arizona? Isn't it time to revisit the laws pertaining to what exactly is needed by a civilian in order to go hunting or to protect their home? When are we going to get serious about enforcing the assault weapons ban? 

I know the gun lobby was already painting the President as someone who would take their guns away when he got into office and so this issue has received no attention from this administration or this Congress. I would hope that this horrible incident will allow those in government the opportunity to discuss this problem with slightly less rhetoric than usual. The people who died and were injured should not be used as fodder for a new round of political name calling and finger pointing. There is a real issue here and while the political discourse needs to find a new level of civility, that is not the main point that we should be discussing. There are literally people's lives at stake here. You can't stop insane people from thinking insane thoughts and committing insane deeds, but perhaps our government can try a little harder to keep the instruments of mass mayhem out of their hands.

Rose Colored Glasses

Image via WikipediaA poll was done by Research 200 for Daily Kos that asked Republicans some questions about the president (thanks to TomCat for the info). The results are to be expected from the members of the losing party in a historically bitter environment of partisan politics. I can also imagine that the numbers would have looked very similar if those questions (slightly altered) would have been asked of Democrats four years ago during the second Bush administration. I'll illustrate the point below the actual questions.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 1/20-31. Self-identified Republicans. MoE 2% (No trend lines)

OBAMA and AMERICA

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Yes 39; No 32; Not Sure 29

Should GWB be impeached?
The numbers from Dems would have been fairly high. Now I thought he should have been impeached for cause, but those on the right would certainly not agree.

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63; No 21; Not Sure 16

Do you think that GWB is trying to a establish a plutocracy?
Not quite the same as the socialist question and actually requires some intelligence, but once again you can see my point on what the Dems would have said.


Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes 21; No 24; Not Sure 55

Do you believe that the Republicans stole the election by using dirty tricks in Ohio?
Much like the ACORN question, I think that the numbers would reflect the frustration of losing an election and trying to find someone or something to blame it on.

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53; No 14; Not Sure 33

Is John Edwards more qualified to be President than GWB?
I'm using John Kerry's VP candidate as a substitute for Palin, but you get the point. Once again the numbers would probably have matched the numbers in the current poll. Obvioulsly I'm talking about Edwards before the whole "I fathered a child with another woman and tried to get one my friends to take the blame by offering him money so that my political career wouldn't be ruined" fiasco.

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Yes 31; No 36; Not Sure 33

Do you believe that GWB is a racist who hates Black people?

Certainly in the aftermath of Katrina, there was a sentiment that GWB certainly had no love for those who were not in his social strata. I don't think the number would have been quite as high for this one, but certainly there was a feeling that GWB didn't care as much about the less fortunate in America

It's clear that there is a deep divide in this country, but I don't think that the divide is any worse than it was during the Bush years. The race of the President makes it easier for some to cast aspersions on his motives and his qualifications, but in the end I don't think that the numbers would have been much different if Hillary Clinton would have won the election. Democrats hated GWB. Republicans hate President Obama. It's that simple. If this poll would have been published when GWB was President, the Right would have said that it showed just how out of touch the Dems are. The Left and Right in this country are absolutely sure that they are correct in their assessment of the country, that any opposing views look absolutely crazy to them. I'm not writing to justify the numbers in this poll or to say that I agree with any of them (which of course I don't), but they have to viewed in context.

The point is that we have to remember how we on the Left felt when GWB was in office. We were absolutely sure in our convictions that he had harmed the country and that certainly his first election was illegitimate. Those on the Right disagreed. Those of us on the Left felt that we had the law and the Constitution on our side. Those on the Right disagreed. Those of us on the Left were called loons, crazies, anarchists, communists or worse by those on the Right. My point is that a little perspective is needed now that the situations have been reversed. Everything is colored by perspective. Now I happen to think that those of us on the Left were correct in our assessment of the Bush administration, but you'd be hard pressed to find a Republican who agrees. The numbers in this poll may appear to "crazy" to those of us on the Left, but then crazy is in the eye of the beholder(or the party in power at the time ).

The Road Less Traveled

I never thought that it would come to this, but the Obama administration is running scared. After the result in the Massachusetts senatorial election last week, the administration is now trying to sound as many populist themes as possible. The latest is the proposed "spending freeze" for the next three years. Of course that spending freeze does not take into account the largest items in the budget and in fact only affects about 1/8 of the total expenditure of the budget. It does not include defense spending, but would include entitlement programs to millions of Americans.

First this "spending freeze" would not, in any significant way, affect the budget deficit. Secondly, during a time of economic crisis, the last thing the White House should be doing is to put a freeze on additional spending. Most economists say that we need a second stimulus package to help to stoke this rather fragile economic recovery that is supposedly underway. Under this new "spending freeze", that would be off the table. The President flat out rejected a spending freeze during the campaign, saying that would be like using a sledgehammer when we needed a scalpel. What has happened in the last 13 months that would have made him now adopt a proposal of John McCain that he rejected out of hand during the campaign? Could it be a loss of a Senate seat that has been Democratic for multiple generations? Could it be sagging poll numbers? Could it be the impending loss of multiple seats in the Senate and the possible loss of control of Congress? Could it be the teabaggers loud protest?

Whatever the reason, it does not sound like a policy decision that is part of a long term strategy. This smacks of desperation. This is a tactic, and a faulty one at that, that is supposed to garner some short term result in the polls. It clearly is not part of the long term strategy that this administration set in place when it entered the White House. I have always felt that the Obama White House had a long term strategy in place and was willing to suffer a short term loss in order to assure that the long term goals were met. This impulsive policy decision has shaken my belief to the core. It there is no long term strategy in place, then what exactly is being decided over on Pennsylvania Avenue? Have they now decided to bend to the wishes of the Teabaggers? Have they now decided that it's better to get along that it is be right?

I have stated before that I do not always agree with this administration, but I have always believed that there is a long term strategy in place. I may not agree with all decisions, but I could always imagine that they were part of a master plan. Now, I'm not so sure. This "spending freeze" is pointless and dangerous. The well being of our economy should not be subject to the whims of the polls or based on whether a decision will be popular with a majority of the people. Obama has always said that he doesn't care if he's a one term President as long as he feels that he did the job that he set out to do. This is a major misstep along that road. And if he starts down this path, he may find himself unable to return the path that he set for himself when he took this job.

Daddy Dearest

On "This Week" on Sunday Liz Cheney added her usual insightful comments about a broad range of topics. While she offered no solutions to any problems, she did have one constant in all her answers. She consistently blamed all of the worlds problems on the current administration without admitting that her George Bush Jr. and her father's administration had anything to do with the mess that we currently find ourselves in.

After playing a commercial from the Liz Cheney led group that criticized the response time of the President to the attempted airline bombing, George Stephanopoulos asked this question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Arguing that the responses were much better under President Bush, yet as many Democrats pointed out, President Bush waited, I think, six days before doing much about Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.

CHENEY: Well, I think that you've got to go back here and look at the way this president has dealt with terror since he's been in office. And the point of that ad was this notion that you cannot win a war if you're treating it as sort of an inconvenient sidelight.

She didn't even attempt to answer the question and Mr. Stephanopoulos, as is his style, didn't follow up to try to get her to answer the question. Why would he let her get away with this? Of course he did the same when he failed to follow after Rudy Guliani claimed that there were no terrorist attacks during the Bush administration.

This isn't about Stephanopoulos, however. The question I have to ask is why is Liz Cheney being given this outlet to spew her partisan nonsense over the airwaves? Liz Cheney has held a couple of positions in the state department during the Bush administration. Having your father as the most powerful Vice President of all time can certainly be a plus when you're trying to get a government job. Does that qualify her as some kind of expert on this administration? Or on what's best for the country? For some reason (oh, what could it be?), the networks just can't seem to get enough of her. Why on earth would the news programs seek out a low level government official from the last administration to give their opinion about anything? I just can't seem to figure that one out.

Anyway, whatever the motivation of the networks may be (wink, wink), it's time that she crawled back into the hole that her father can't seem to stay in himself these days. Her father's contribution to this country was to line his pockets and those of his friends, waste the lives of thousands of American soldiers, trample the Constitution, and help push this country toward an economic meltdown. Not exactly a stellar record of achievement. Apparently his daughter hopes to follow in his footsteps with a big hand up from the mainstream media. I can only hope for the day when we are free from the blight of this current generation of Cheney's. I'm not sure we can survive many more.