Obama is a problem for the Democrats
Rightwingsparkle summarizes my thoughts on the Democrat situation with Barack Obama as their candidate.
I have wondered for years what the Dems are thinking as they try to implement the failed efforts of Europe to socialize. The Clintons, for whom I have almost nothing good to say, were smart enough to see this as a losing strategy. Hillary is smart enough to see this as a losing strategy, but the extreme left has done her in!
The wonderful thing is that Republicans will have another chance to get this country going in the right direction. Let's hope they do a better job in the next 8 years than they have in the previous 8.
I have wondered for years what the Dems are thinking as they try to implement the failed efforts of Europe to socialize. The Clintons, for whom I have almost nothing good to say, were smart enough to see this as a losing strategy. Hillary is smart enough to see this as a losing strategy, but the extreme left has done her in!
The wonderful thing is that Republicans will have another chance to get this country going in the right direction. Let's hope they do a better job in the next 8 years than they have in the previous 8.
Labels: Politics
posted by Jim | 8:06 AM
7 Comments:
We'll of course see whether your prediction comes true in time... My sense is that Democrats will pick up seats in both houses regardless of the presidential outcome.
I'm interested in what you see as the main shortcomings of the current administration (or what you'd like to see the next administration do different).
I agree on the House and Senate pickups - due to the dissatisfaction with the lack of a foreseeable end to Iraq, a fact that in our "short term vision" does not fly well particularly with the Left and Independents. My actual belief is that Hillary will be the candidate, and the Republicans will also beat her! How? Your guess is as good as mine!
Bush's shortcomings:
COMMUNICATION - he and his staff stink, which now amazes me since we are seeing alot of Karl Rove who is a good communicator.
SPENDING- he and his administration let the Dems drive the spending just as if they were in power. Unfortunately, the Republicans are used to that PORK also and let it happen!
VETOES - his lack of use has been a shame. I think he has an attitude that things will take care of themselves - kind of a religious right attitude - and therefore is not as aggressive as a President has to be!
BERNANKE - is not doing a good job as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. We need an "outsider", business oriented person, not an "insider" academic! The dollar is going to hell - wonder why your gas is expensive? - and he continues to push it down. Seems an incorrect strategy at this time to me.
I would like the next administration to fix all of the above as well as pursue Bush's biggest failure - understandable with the misrepresentation from the left - but still a failure: Social Security!
How about the same list back at me?
I don't count Hilary out of it yet; who knows what sort of backroom shenanigans could take place at the convention... but we'll see.
In terms of the main shortcomings that I'd hold Bush responsible for:
Poor tactics in war on terror: I don't think we had to give up the moral high ground in order to effectively fight terrorism, yet it appears that the highest levels of his admin approve of the various torture and rendition tactics.
Lack of leadership: includes the reluctance to use the veto (for instance to combat 'bridges to nowhere,' etc), and the general tendency to 'let things slide' and a seeming tendency to ignore all shortcomings in favor of loyalty.
Deficits don't matter attitude: they may not matter so much politically in the short term, but it does seem like the U.S. is not in the greatest economic shape, and is unwilling to 'take the medicine' that we surely would recommend to any other economy in our situation. I'll just say I'm glad to be earning in Euros at the moment.
I don't really blame Bush for Bernanke or what the Fed has done, but it does seem that the Fed attitude is more about trying to prop up economic activity than trying to keep the dollar attractive, which perversely leads to inflation and dropping activity. I think there are a lot of built up imbalances that cause the Fed to walk a tough tightrope.
We are pretty much in agreement. Neither left or right is concerned about the deficit - and don't come back at me with the reductions during Clinton's term as this was caused by an economic bubble that any party would have enjoyed at that time - spending did not decrease!
I do take exception with your belief that we lost the moral high ground in Iraq - that is the most "moral relativistic" statement I have heard in a while.
Do you really believe that some water boarding, some humiliation of Muslims in a mis-managed prison, and probably an occasional soldier getting carried away in the stress of battle is the equivalent of:
cutting heads off of prisoners!
blowing up yourself and dozens of innocent bystanders!
hanging the burnt bodies of U.S. workers off a bridge structure!
if you believe these are equivalent, as most of the left seems to, I believe you all need to re-evaluate your value structure!!
I would be interested in uyour comments.
By the way, are you back in the Netherlands? How was England? I enjoyed your pictures of Cambridge. I remember Sue and I having tea at a little tea shop in the center of town. Very nice!
Probably 'give up the moral high ground' was too strong a way of putting it, as it implies that we ceded that ground to others.
But I do feel that the U.S. loses some moral position by having the administration discuss and create legal justification for tactics that we have previously prosecuted other countries for using. It's not simple mismanagement or 'heat of battle' issues I am concerned about, as they will happen, but high-level policy decisions that I think are regrettable and not up to previous American high standards.
Yes, back in Netherlands now until mid-August. Things are now nice and green here, getting very pleasant out.
"but high-level policy decisions that I think are regrettable and not up to previous American high standards."
The current administration has certainly been worse than the Dems high standards during WWII: holding enemy combatants in camps within the U.S. with no legal rights at all (and I'm sure doing much worse than at Gitmo or Abu Graib!) and interning all domestic Japanese because they look like one of our enemies, hasn't it!
Get real!! The "moral high ground" today is much "higher" than it has ever been in history. I know you read alot. Read some history of the U.S. treatment of enemy combatants during wartime. Ever hear of Andersonville?
I think we don't remember history and therefore we are doomed to repeat it. By not recognizing the progress we have made over 200 years you are dooming us to a repeat of it.
Enough! I wish I were with you in Europe to enjoy the spring and summer. Sue and I are moving into a new house next month. We are not going to rebuild, but are going to live near where we were before. Enjoy your summer!
Always good to keep a long perspective on these things!
I'd argue that because of the long-term progress we make, our standards continue to shift (the bar is keeps raising), and that's part of the process of continuing to make progress.
But indeed, what the U.S. did to Japanese-Americans in WWII is way beyond 'regrettable'. I respected Bush's steps toward avoiding a repeat of such policies with regard to Arab-American after 9/11.
Post a Comment
<< Home