Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The headline comes from a Common Cause talking point for many years when they promoted public financing. What is really going on here is that Obama owes no special debt to fat cats. So ideas which lead to policies will rise and fall based on their own merits. Yes, Obama gets to decide what is possible. But that is better than most previous presidents who had to deal with the fat cats who could twist his arm.
Instead of presenting this as an un-American vice, I believe it is the dawn of previously unknown American virtue.
As a conservative, I too expected the new administration to strike a more liberal tone at the outset. I expected something like Michael Manley of Jamaica, another bi-racial leftist who raised taxes, borrowed heavily from the IMF, and wrangled with his wealthy countrymen - reminding them that a plane left for Florida every 60 minutes, should they choose to leave. Mr. Obama is not emulating Mr. Manley, at least so far.
Then again, why should he? I know a number of 55+ year old centrists who broke his way for two main reasons. One, this "needed to be done" (i.e., electing our first African American president). Two, we need to end the "new Vietnam." The success of the surge, the dampening of American casualties, and the three-year plan for departure seems to have done the trick there. Mr. Obama is quite savvy in catering to this centrist crowd with his Cabinet picks, and his policies: they, after all, hold the keys to any future re-election.
As for gratitude, I never saw that as Mr. Obama's strong suit. Most politicians stand on stages after primary victories being swarmed by supporters, and devote much time in their televised addresses to thank you's. Sarah Palin's parents are still personally responding to over 400 letters per day, according to the papers. Mr. Obama got $600 million in donations, but I haven't yet heard the first televised thank you from him (in fairness to him, I haven't always been listening, either). I don't see a lot of thank you's "in action," either, in terms of his appointments, but then again -- that is not unexpected, given his record.
Why should liberals be happy? They will undoubtedly get pro-Roe Supreme Court appointments. They will get a trillion dollars in new borrowing next year from China/Japan -- although that will bankrupt the country even further, and prevent national health care from happening, it will secure Mr. Obama politically (long term borrowing usually does, as an offset to hard times) and at least lay the groundwork for future liberal reforms. The daily zigs and zags will tilt left, not right, for a change, and there will surely be some new conservative bogeyman to demonize. (I surely hope so, unless every politician in America has now dropped the word "no" from his or her vocabulary).
People like me will not find much comfort in any of this, except for possible steadiness overseas under Gates/Petreus, which could count for a lot. And of course, we conservatives now have Sarah Palin, the greatest gift to our party since Reagen. Whatever liberals think of her shortcomings, they can't deny her strengths, or her appeal. I predict she will address those perceived weaknesses head-on, and emerge even stronger. Whether or not she ever becomes president, it will be a joy to watch our party in action, should she take a leadership role in the future. Defeat is tolerable, under circumstances such as this.
"Trust...but verify."
Obama is a better breed of politician than the gangsters who have run the united States for the last eight years, but he's still a politician. Make sure he listens to the millions of people who gave him the money he needed to win the election.
I do not want to argue the Vietnam War anymore. People will tell me if we had not gone into that mess, the Berlin Wall would never have fallen.
Then why, within months after we left, did China invade Vietnam and realize within a year that it was a waste of time?
I don't care anymore.
I do not wish to argue the gun issue anymore. As far as I am concerned the bad guys won and its over. I am against the right of individuals to own surface to air missles, nuclear arms and
weapons that fire 160 bullets every minute--at least not in urban areas. Other than that, I don't care anymore.
I do not wish to argue Affirmative Action anymore when the other side is simply covering a racial resentment that is irrelevant today.
Issues have to be reframed or I am stuck arguing with Rush. I do not wish to argue with Rush anymore or even acknowledge his existence.
This New Administration is not monolithic in thought, experience or education. It will be a team of hundreds of the best and the brightest. And the team is not going to ignore the wishes of the people in general or the party.
I really think this new web site will open a door that will enable communication from the people who are interested in this country and from the government to the people.
We will see. But I do not think that this New Administration is beholden to interest groups in any way shape or form like the current Administration was and still is.
Obama's power isn't as free floating as David depicts it here. True, Obama isn't dependent on any one faction, as our past several have been -- a strength of moving away from the "identity" politics the Democrats have used to organize themselves in the past. Instead, he built a (largely) online community, and brought together a network of progressive networks to form a new coalition.
But the idea he can now do anything he wants because the unions (or Wall Street, or feminists, etc.) don't own him is simply wrong. His power right now is based on the (accurate) perception that he represents a consensus, pointing in a generally progressive direction. If he violates that consensus, and becomes too hawkish or too corporate, or if he is seen as a tool of the establishment, his vaunted e-mail list will be of no use to him. If he goes against the reasons people signed up on MyObama.com, he'll have no army of constituents to activate to push legislation; they'll simply back away.
The laws of political thermodynamics still apply, even in a people-powered environment. Responding to the public interest is similar to satisfying a special interest, in that the client still needs to they're being attended to.
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
