Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Who do you want, Noam Chomsky? Appointing pointy headed academics with interesting theories and no real world, or real Washington experience is a luxury right now. Obama needs proven brainiacs who can hit the ground running. He also needs cooperation on the hill, which is best garnered by people who know how to play the game. The far right may be consistently stupid, but the far left is consistently naive. Citibank almost went down. The auto industry is hanging by a thread. This is no time to risk protracted confirmation hearings on unproven managers. Wake up and smell the doo doo, people. We're in it knee deep. Obama's banking on proven entities to clean it up. Now here's change for you. We have a leader who is articulate and intelligent, with leadership abilities and no fear of surrounding himself with people who may disagree with him. He also aspires to work across party lines. You don't do that by making Dennis Kucinich secretary of state.
What is the point of "getting even". That is a trait of the Bush administration. Think of the Civil War when so many wanted to punish the south. Lincoln and Grant said "no". and they were right. Maybe Lieberman isn't quite that dramatic but the fact is he does caucus with the Democrats and Obama's agenda needs all the senate votes he can get. Also, it should be applauded that Joe had the nerve to speak his opinion. Too many politicians go only with the party line regardless of their personal beliefs. maybe now, more will have the courage to vote their own position instead of fearing for their political career and voting with the caucus.
In Minnesota, the Republican caucus removed six legislators from their leadership posts because they voted with the Democrats on a highway bill. Then they refused to endorse several of them. This kind of vindictive government is a large part of what is wrong at all levels. It is time that our politicians really represent us all and have the option of voting for what they believe and what will help their constituents need. No one can convince me that every Republican or Democrat thinks exactly like their party on every vote. Maybe we should let them have some freedom of choice? Maybe we would get less partisan politics and better legislation?
Lincoln may have used political appointments across the board, but Lincoln's greatness consisted of waging a WAR against slavery. So don't put the Lincoln mantle on Obama until he wages WAR on our own reationaries. And the odds of him doing that are almost nil. You want the legislative Lincoln without the historical Lincoln, cowards. Don't use the name if you're not ready to 'march through Georgia'.
Nor will he be like FDR, who was pushed to the left my millions of populists like Huey Long, socialists, communists and unionists in the 1930s - a movement which does not exist at the present time. FDR adopted policies that Long had pushed for years. This movement is not replaced by a bunch of well-meaning liberals on the internet.
Nor will he be like Kennedy - unless he confronts the military on the key issue of fighting 'terror' and undermining governments across the globe, as Kennedy did on 'communism' - Cuba, the USSR, nukes and Vietnam. Obama's words on Afghanistan, Isreal and Georgia are not really conducive to this. And now he is hesitating on Iraq.
Study history, don't just mouthe cliches.
They're still sketching out the wedding rehearsal.
A symphony orchestra is made up of maybe a hundred highly talented individuals. We all have our own style of playing, musical preferences and personality. But whether we like it or not, we do what the conductor asks. If we are known for our powerful brass section (hello, Chicago) but the conductor wants a delicate and transparent sound, that's what he gets. Even the Vienna Philharmonic, steeped in a century-plus of refinement and tradition, will get rough and rude for Valery Gergiev. The critical ingredient, however, is that the conductor must have both the force of personality and the respect of the musicians for the results to be optimal.
The evidence so far suggests that Barack Obama has the skills necessary to lead and if need be to wrangle the powerful individuals he has selected for his administration. He wants to hear their divergent opinions, but he also possesses that force of personality to make it clear he is in charge, that he will make the final decisions. As long as they respect President Obama, they will serve his administration's interests rather than their own. Whether they come over from the Clinton Symphony or even the George Bush Marching Band, they will be performing for a new leader. Give them and Maestro Obama a chance.
Obama has a unique ability to get various groups of people to believe that "he is one their side"..while never making a commitment or risk to himself. Most of the leftists netroots only regurgitated the rabid right wing talking points about the Clinton's believing "Obama was their man". However, when push came to shove regarding supporting Move On.org and their ad regarding General Petraus, it was Hillary Clinton who voted her support for Move On, not Obama. Obama was absent for the vote but present in the Senate. Obama played with the netroots further by stating that he was going to be different from the past including the Clinton administration. I am sorry you were all fooled by politics as usual.
This does not mean that Obama will do a bad job as president. It is just who he is. Anyone who believed that Obama was a true progressive while running around with Reverend Meeks as another one of his "spiritual mentors" and Joe Lieberman as one of his mentors in the Senate should have their head examined. After all, Obama campaigned for Leiberman running as an independent against an anti war candidate.
After reading all of these rantings I've come to the conclusion that the left is so used to politicians lying that they simply didn't believe what Obama was saying. He straight up told us that he would reach across the aisle and embrace bipartisan initiatives. He said he would value practical solutions over ideological purity. He said his social programs would only move forward if the economy was healthy enough to make them feasable. He said he would begin a long term effort to draw down our troop levels in Iraq but that the details and timetable were subject to the realities on the ground. He said Al Qaida is a very real threat that must be confronted in Afghanistan and around the world. Somehow despite all of that, progressives simply didn't believe him. They thought he was just lying to the moderate voters in the middle to get elected and once in office would enact all of their radically leftist dream initiatives. Guess what? He meant what he said. His administration will be practical, centrist, and effective. Thanks God.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
