If you want to take seriously the anonymous reports from the McCain camp that Sarah did not know that Africa is a continent or what countries make up NAFTA you can. There is the saga of clothing, how much spent, by whom, and where it has gone. It has been said that the McCain camp had figured out the Couric questions and Sarah refused briefing. It may say something that it is even in question.
I don't think Sarah Palin is very intelligent, nor well informed, nor at all analytical. I'm not sure she is competent to be Governor of Alaska. I also think this stuff is more interesting in what it says about Republicans than about Palin. Remember what her role was, she was to bring the base over. This was to be the anti-intellectual, religious, blue collar, plain folks appeal. They found someone without the baggage that accompanies political experience, things like thought, compromise, and fairly broad interests. What they got was a woman who greatly resembled the constituency she was to appeal to.
It is one thing to go to that base every two or four years, it is another thing entirely to put actual power in their hands. McCain and camp McCain surely expected to outlast Sarah in the White House, there was no idea in their heads that she would actually be President. These people are to seem to have their interests addressed during election and then they are cast aside. What they actually want, theocracy, would cause both Supreme Court backlash and an actual revolt amongst the populace - so they are only to think they are important. Sarah Palin breaks that rule. You can be sure nobody told her about it or made any sort of intimation that there is such a rule and that it is to be followed.
If you think this is an exaggeration, check out her defenders - right wing talk radio and loon fringe bloggers. Faux News is participating in the gutting of the Alaskan fish. The noise factor wasn't let in on joke, you had better believe that Murdoch not only was in on the joke, that he is one of architects of it. The sad part is watching people vote directly counter to their interests in search of that which is only a chimera.
Showing posts with label Base. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Base. Show all posts
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Friday, January 19, 2007
Ideological Purity
David Sirota writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that there is a real problem with people in power not owning what they said about the Iraq War, this is certainly true. He holds John Edwards up as an example of how it should be done - I made a mistake and I regret it. He goes on to note that there definitely is a massive case of CYA going on. This is where it gets sticky, why is this going on?
We all know why the President of the US would state that he never said, "Stay the course." It's politically stupid to do it, but he does have the semantic dodge of what course he was talking about, Nostradamus works well in that respect. There is however the matter of pundits and other pols who beat the warm drum enthusiastically. It is now a generally unpopular stand to take and those who take it publicly will be held to account for that stance. There is such a thing as Conservatism that isn't about god, gays, and guns; I don't subscribe to the philosophy but one of its tenets is military adventures aren't to be done. That used to be a Republican deal, but ideological purity requirements of the past decade silenced that. The political price to be paid for opposing the Iraq adventure on philosophical grounds outweighed principle. You weren't pure in the Bush ideology.
The responsibility for this falls on Parties and voters. Politicians can count. If philosophy loses to Party line the fault is not solely the Party's. This notion of ideological purity driving political discourse is harmful to Parties and to national policy and Republicans are not the only guilty party. There are, of course, issues that in voter's mind's trump ideology. Joe Lieberman is an example, his stance on Iraq cost him the Democratic Primary despite the rest of his political stances. There does, however, remain a blindness to policy and reasoning due to ideology. I will make a personal argument in this arena, I am intimately familiar with it and thus competent. During the Democratic Primary for OR 02 CD I set up policy statements and my reasoning for them, The Oregonian took those and attributed "the most conservative" of the candidates to me. As far as I can tell, there were 3 policies that contributed to that, strong support of the 2nd Amendment, opposition to illegal hiring/illegal immigration, and a stance that one size fits all environmental regulations is doomed. Now I'd be real surprised to find that conservatives exactly agree with my rationales for those stands, they are in fact based on hard left politics. Anybody that hasn't gotten the idea that I regard the 2nd as the final block against people like BushCo hasn't paid attention - and yes, I regard that bunch as exactly that dangerous. Sounds left to me. Illegal hiring crushes labor - I oppose fervently any actions to debase labor, and I don't mean just organized labor and in the 1920's that would've gotten me arrested. I'll fight the establishment of, enhancement of, and enabling of a plutocracy in this country tooth and nail and serfs are a part of that. That's damn left. Environmental policies that are created with the one size fits all philosophy are doomed, public backlash will occur and the very people you need to be partners become enemies. I want success in that arena, long term meaningful success. Left again. That is not the measure that was taken of me as a candidate. I failed the ideological purity test on the surface. Drivng drag cars fails completely.
Reasoning and motive become buried under simplistic labels, the fact that racist xenophobic nutcases oppose illegal immigration has nothing to do with the matter as far as the health and well being of labor is concerned. It certainly is not progressive politics to oppose something on the basis of race, neither is it progressive to participate in the oppression of labor. Pay attention. The fact that the NRA seems to have fallen in bed with some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party has exactly not one thing to do with owning firearms. The fact that Sen Chuck Schumer (D) sees a difference between interfering with the 2nd and interfering with the 1st does not make it progressive to do so, it is in fact absolutely oppressive to restrict liberty. It is not reasoning to ignore contradictions in the name of ideology, it is the pursuit of ideological purity that you've been told exists.
Do the Hillary Clintons pass ideological muster? Certainly on name alone, debate ceases if the surname and (D) becomes all important. The question really should fall on the balance of policy statements, their reasoning and their motives. The timing of her opposition (post mid-term) to Iraq is suspect in my eyes, her stances on gun control have shown no reasoning in light of the Constitution, in point of fact I find her very nearly the most poll driven pol I've seen. I cannot find a single iota of respect for labor in any of her stances beyond the minimum wage and that has yet to play out. Do I find Hillary's ideological purity in question? Not really, I have no idea what her ideology is by definition of action. I don't care if it doesn't look ideologically pure, I care about the outcomes and the reasons for them. Ideological purity is all about appearances and those who'll pass its muster should be deeply suspect. If you've 'stuck your foot in it' apologize for it, state why you were wrong then and why you're right now, people will take the measure of that and make an informed decision. If you're right, stand up for it, the heck with how pure it looks.
We all know why the President of the US would state that he never said, "Stay the course." It's politically stupid to do it, but he does have the semantic dodge of what course he was talking about, Nostradamus works well in that respect. There is however the matter of pundits and other pols who beat the warm drum enthusiastically. It is now a generally unpopular stand to take and those who take it publicly will be held to account for that stance. There is such a thing as Conservatism that isn't about god, gays, and guns; I don't subscribe to the philosophy but one of its tenets is military adventures aren't to be done. That used to be a Republican deal, but ideological purity requirements of the past decade silenced that. The political price to be paid for opposing the Iraq adventure on philosophical grounds outweighed principle. You weren't pure in the Bush ideology.
The responsibility for this falls on Parties and voters. Politicians can count. If philosophy loses to Party line the fault is not solely the Party's. This notion of ideological purity driving political discourse is harmful to Parties and to national policy and Republicans are not the only guilty party. There are, of course, issues that in voter's mind's trump ideology. Joe Lieberman is an example, his stance on Iraq cost him the Democratic Primary despite the rest of his political stances. There does, however, remain a blindness to policy and reasoning due to ideology. I will make a personal argument in this arena, I am intimately familiar with it and thus competent. During the Democratic Primary for OR 02 CD I set up policy statements and my reasoning for them, The Oregonian took those and attributed "the most conservative" of the candidates to me. As far as I can tell, there were 3 policies that contributed to that, strong support of the 2nd Amendment, opposition to illegal hiring/illegal immigration, and a stance that one size fits all environmental regulations is doomed. Now I'd be real surprised to find that conservatives exactly agree with my rationales for those stands, they are in fact based on hard left politics. Anybody that hasn't gotten the idea that I regard the 2nd as the final block against people like BushCo hasn't paid attention - and yes, I regard that bunch as exactly that dangerous. Sounds left to me. Illegal hiring crushes labor - I oppose fervently any actions to debase labor, and I don't mean just organized labor and in the 1920's that would've gotten me arrested. I'll fight the establishment of, enhancement of, and enabling of a plutocracy in this country tooth and nail and serfs are a part of that. That's damn left. Environmental policies that are created with the one size fits all philosophy are doomed, public backlash will occur and the very people you need to be partners become enemies. I want success in that arena, long term meaningful success. Left again. That is not the measure that was taken of me as a candidate. I failed the ideological purity test on the surface. Drivng drag cars fails completely.
Reasoning and motive become buried under simplistic labels, the fact that racist xenophobic nutcases oppose illegal immigration has nothing to do with the matter as far as the health and well being of labor is concerned. It certainly is not progressive politics to oppose something on the basis of race, neither is it progressive to participate in the oppression of labor. Pay attention. The fact that the NRA seems to have fallen in bed with some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party has exactly not one thing to do with owning firearms. The fact that Sen Chuck Schumer (D) sees a difference between interfering with the 2nd and interfering with the 1st does not make it progressive to do so, it is in fact absolutely oppressive to restrict liberty. It is not reasoning to ignore contradictions in the name of ideology, it is the pursuit of ideological purity that you've been told exists.
Do the Hillary Clintons pass ideological muster? Certainly on name alone, debate ceases if the surname and (D) becomes all important. The question really should fall on the balance of policy statements, their reasoning and their motives. The timing of her opposition (post mid-term) to Iraq is suspect in my eyes, her stances on gun control have shown no reasoning in light of the Constitution, in point of fact I find her very nearly the most poll driven pol I've seen. I cannot find a single iota of respect for labor in any of her stances beyond the minimum wage and that has yet to play out. Do I find Hillary's ideological purity in question? Not really, I have no idea what her ideology is by definition of action. I don't care if it doesn't look ideologically pure, I care about the outcomes and the reasons for them. Ideological purity is all about appearances and those who'll pass its muster should be deeply suspect. If you've 'stuck your foot in it' apologize for it, state why you were wrong then and why you're right now, people will take the measure of that and make an informed decision. If you're right, stand up for it, the heck with how pure it looks.
Friday, November 10, 2006
I Know We're the Base, But...
Yippee, Democrats! Yahooo, the House! Weehaaa, the Senate! Governorships, State Houses, Wow! Well that's nice and all but there's quite a bit it doesn't mean.
In comparison to the other industrialized democratic governments in the world the USA is quite a bit right of center, even when it thinks it's being liberal, which it doesn't. The USA thinks it's being centrist or slightly right of center, it's not when compared to, say, our 200th Birthday - 1976, it's a lot right. Previously I mentioned that the Independent/NA voters that pushed us over the top simply fired their guys, they don't like us, they won't help us (we're both the same), and they're just looking for an excuse to go back - you just know the Republicans have learned a lesson. (cough, cough, choke) A lot of the candidates that won would be Republicans if the Republicans weren't loons. And believe it, the Herd has been culled, those wimpy "moderate" Republicans (RINOs) got replaced with Democrats (Dinos???). Yep, this is a mandate to kill for...
On to some realism, there aren't the votes to override vetoes, so George II is still pulling those strings. If you have some idea he and his cronies have suddenly gotten the message, you're reading a different book. Condi Rice is no less intellectually and historically challenged and certainly not less lickspittle and think about it, she may be the best of the bunch.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are "left" according to media and Republicans. If left means gun control, then Nancy is. I don't know when else Harry could've been called left. I'm not trying to insult these people, they do actually say some center left things, but they're not left. Getting out of Iraq isn't Left, opposing it wasn't Left. Gun Control isn't Left, it's just a different version of GWB's security nonsense. (spelled screw the Constitution & the People)
National Health Care, an end to Plutocracy, Taxation according to benefit, fair and even and legal labor markets, an end to Union busting, fair and even access to government contracts, de-centralization of media - ie breaking conglomerates, breaking monopolies, public access through low power, re-banning foreign ownership (see ya Rupert), free trade on an even playing field, FICA cap removed, foreign based corporations banned from Federal & State contracts, all law-abiding citizens have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, now that stuff starts to sound a little left, well, it's not happening for quite some time. It is utter nonsense that that stuff is left wing loon talk, but there you are.
So, Base, what's to be done? Well first we don't kill our allies and we do the hard work of persuading people that we're sensible people with good ideas. That also means getting "D" where that "I" is, no kidding, we need those folks so we need to prove to them that we're not just a different spelling of the other guy. Then there are the "0" folks, the other half of the electorate, the ones that just don't vote. This is the huge hole in the whole process and a lot of them are our natural allies. I used to think they just didn't care, on reflection I think they're disgusted, I think they let large numbers dissuade them (doesn't count), and I think nobody has realistically reached out to them. We just got a whacking amount of free publicity, how about we make some use of it before it wears off. OK, have a party, pat each other on the back, it's been awhile, but just this weekend, then let's get out there. Hey, Howard Dean, good job on the 50 State deal, but now let's really do some work.
In comparison to the other industrialized democratic governments in the world the USA is quite a bit right of center, even when it thinks it's being liberal, which it doesn't. The USA thinks it's being centrist or slightly right of center, it's not when compared to, say, our 200th Birthday - 1976, it's a lot right. Previously I mentioned that the Independent/NA voters that pushed us over the top simply fired their guys, they don't like us, they won't help us (we're both the same), and they're just looking for an excuse to go back - you just know the Republicans have learned a lesson. (cough, cough, choke) A lot of the candidates that won would be Republicans if the Republicans weren't loons. And believe it, the Herd has been culled, those wimpy "moderate" Republicans (RINOs) got replaced with Democrats (Dinos???). Yep, this is a mandate to kill for...
On to some realism, there aren't the votes to override vetoes, so George II is still pulling those strings. If you have some idea he and his cronies have suddenly gotten the message, you're reading a different book. Condi Rice is no less intellectually and historically challenged and certainly not less lickspittle and think about it, she may be the best of the bunch.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are "left" according to media and Republicans. If left means gun control, then Nancy is. I don't know when else Harry could've been called left. I'm not trying to insult these people, they do actually say some center left things, but they're not left. Getting out of Iraq isn't Left, opposing it wasn't Left. Gun Control isn't Left, it's just a different version of GWB's security nonsense. (spelled screw the Constitution & the People)
National Health Care, an end to Plutocracy, Taxation according to benefit, fair and even and legal labor markets, an end to Union busting, fair and even access to government contracts, de-centralization of media - ie breaking conglomerates, breaking monopolies, public access through low power, re-banning foreign ownership (see ya Rupert), free trade on an even playing field, FICA cap removed, foreign based corporations banned from Federal & State contracts, all law-abiding citizens have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities, now that stuff starts to sound a little left, well, it's not happening for quite some time. It is utter nonsense that that stuff is left wing loon talk, but there you are.
So, Base, what's to be done? Well first we don't kill our allies and we do the hard work of persuading people that we're sensible people with good ideas. That also means getting "D" where that "I" is, no kidding, we need those folks so we need to prove to them that we're not just a different spelling of the other guy. Then there are the "0" folks, the other half of the electorate, the ones that just don't vote. This is the huge hole in the whole process and a lot of them are our natural allies. I used to think they just didn't care, on reflection I think they're disgusted, I think they let large numbers dissuade them (doesn't count), and I think nobody has realistically reached out to them. We just got a whacking amount of free publicity, how about we make some use of it before it wears off. OK, have a party, pat each other on the back, it's been awhile, but just this weekend, then let's get out there. Hey, Howard Dean, good job on the 50 State deal, but now let's really do some work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)