Reactions have poured in:

It was a beautiful speech, especially the end. But I still don’t know how long we’re going to be in Libya. Or what we ultimately want to see there, aside from Qaddafi leaving, somehow. Or what we’re obligated to do, now that we’ve done what we said we were going to do, but not really. It was vintage Obama: I’m moved but unconvinced.

I’m torn.  The president’s speech was a sweeping ode to American exceptionalism, and the need for American intervention to clamp down on  the scurrilous reach of the unjust and wicked.  I got that message loud and clear.  What I didn’t get loud and clear, was the implicit directive, or the direction our new engagement will take us.  How will we achieve our aims if the resistance steps up their attacks and drives the rebels back?  How entrenched will our involvement get?

I’m not sure the president himself truly knows these answers.  I wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t.  But I would surmise that this is precisely what make people leery of his policy and direction a tad bit nervous.  Committing to yet another engagement without a clear, concise directive in a time of economic uncertainty and war fatigue is a dangerous political calculation.  And this one will be owned solely by him.

Then again, maybe the answer lay in America’s ability to exert our exceptionalism as I’ve stated.  Maybe this president–giving a turn as the unapologetic freedom fighter–has one true aim:  to defend liberty.  That can never be bad can it?  Let’s hope it is not.

I suppose I’ll have to see the Obama Doctrine on Libya as one of American moral relativism– and democratic righteousness in the face of callous, cruel and despotic behavior.  And while it does not answer the questions I posed above– or deal with the real possibility of a continuing Qaddafi regime– it is what we have.  I hope we can all live with the consequences.

Related posts:

1. When Will Someone Do The Really Hard Work? Alan Simpson is on point.  When will someone be the...
2. Thank You Rush Limbaugh… …For giving us a snapshot of the only possible direction...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Alan Simpson is on point.  When will someone be the adult in the room?  If you’re actively trying to rein in deficit spending, then this budget proposal makes no sense. I don’t see anything concrete getting to the crux of the real problem.  I see nuanced, half-hearted attempts at mollifying segments of the electorate, and both left and right.  Putting a freeze on certain spending programs does nothing to address the real problems are. Government commitments are paralyzing American financial flexibility.  When do you do something about it?

Why ignore over 80% of the federal budget, in order to focus on the 12-15% that does nothing to deflate deficits?  Political gambits and calculations  are fine, just not when you’re claiming the mantle of deficit hawk.

The challenge this president faces today is a daunting one– one that isn’t easily approachable or answered.  But that doesn’t me that it should not be.  Attacking entitlements is paramount to curbing the monstrous upward curve our spending has been on.  Is it fair to lay all the blame on this president?  Not necessarily, considering all of his predecessors punted in the face of entitlement reform as well.  But this was no ordinary commander in chief in my eyes.  He was the transformative agent, beholden to no one as he attempted to changed the political landscape, and reshape American strength.

It’s still not too late for him.  I realize the political savaging headed his way if he followed Simpson-Bowles by conservatives–who don’t give a damn about the deficit in any manner–and democrats, afraid of touching the sacred medicare cow.  But in my view, that’s precisely why he’s perfectly situated to make this call.  He’s the grown-up, making the tough calls the family doesn’t always want to hear, but needs to.

The cynic in me chalks this up to political expediency, as the president charts a safer course for his re-election.  Actually that’s not cynicism at all– that’s pretty much a fact.  It is unsurprising.  Short term politics is what got us in this mess in the first place.  But it’s no way to successfully chart a course for future growth and American financial viability.  I’m saddened that the president does not realize this.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image via Wikipedia

While my other writing job has kept me very busy as of late, I’m always up for a hearty laugh when the time allows.  Thanks to ThinkProgress, I’m provided with more than a few.  As the GOP warned ominously about the socialist revolution sweeping America since Barack Obama became president, our government was busy digging us out of a ridiculous economic trench.  Rescuing U.S automakers was part of that plan.  It’s immediate point was to keep those companies solvent–since they are one of the biggest providers of jobs in America.

Republicans were against that.  Vehemently.  Here are a few examples:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): “We should have let them go into bankruptcy, emerge and become viable corporations again. The unions didn’t want to have their very generous contracts renegotiated, so we put $80 billion into both General Motors and Chrysler, and anybody believes that Chrysler is going to survive, I’d like to meet them.” [11/19/2009]

SEN. JIM DEMINT (R-SC): “The government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability.” [06/01/2009]

REP. PAUL BROUN (R-GA): “This is an unprecedented takeover from the private sector by this administration…It is totally unconstitutional, it’s totally against freedom, it’s totally unprecedented, and it’s exactly the same thing that Hugo Chávez is doing down in Venezuela.” [06/09/2009]

REP. TRENT FRANKS (R-AZ): When Washington gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.” [07/22/2009]

No the apocalyspe did not strike.  Civilization still exists. In fact for a good portion of Americans, it is much better.  They still have their jobs.  Oh, and the automakers seem to be doing much better too:

The smallest of the Big Three U.S. automakers appears poised for a comeback less than two years after the government saved it from extinction. Chrysler made a $569 million net profit last year and has $10 billion in hand. It is adding jobs in the U.S. and slowly countering impressions in Washington and elsewhere that it can’t survive. “Over the course of the last 12 months, we’ve raised our outlook significantly,” said George Magliano, senior auto analyst for IHS Global Insight. “Their whole tone has changed over the last six to eight months.”

The last vestiges of dignity and common sense these leaders cling to is blowing away.  I’m sure that won’t stop them from falsely prognosticating, though.  What else can they do?  They sure as hell can’t lead.

Major H/T ThinkProgress

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image via Wikipedia

This reader on the Dish, has a fascinating take on the concept behind the Founding Fathers’ “three-fifths compromise:”

I’m continually surprised at how many people don’t understand the three-fifths compromise in the original U.S. Constitution, usually describing it somewhat like Cord Jefferson does: “the three-fifths compromise, in which the government decided that black slaves were subhuman”. The clear implication here that the Constitution codified a black slave was worth only 60% of a normal human, because they didn’t count as much as “free Persons” in establishing proportional representation in the House.

But this understanding is completely backwards; black slaves would have been better off if the Constitution counted them at one-fifth, or not at all.  The southern states would have been much happier had the slaves counted as whole persons, or better yet, 5 persons each!

Why?  Because it would have meant that the southern, slaveowning, states would have had even greater control of the House and the Electoral College than they initially ended up with (it’s no accident that 9 of the first 12 presidents were Southern).  Since slaves couldn’t vote, they were not being counted as people, but as property, giving greater political power to their owners.  It was the northern states that pushed to have slaves not count at all in apportioning representatives (and “direct Taxes”), but since the southern states were both less populous and outnumbered (8-5, or 16-10 in the Senate-to-be), concessions such as this were thought necessary to gain their ratification of the Constitution and entry into the Union.

Here’s my argument, and it’s not based on political realities.  It’s based on sheer ideological grounds.  Three-fifths was based upon keeping the white supremacist system in place.  That’s it.  A case could be made for its political expediency–although as a forward thinking American, concerned with the rights of others, and my own human sovereignty–I’m not inclined to prop up that argument.  Its merits come up short on the humanity scale.

And this is the problem with debating issues concerning race.  There are no strict political grounds from which to argue policies that further entrench a racist system.  Three-fifths was an explicit expression of white supremacy, and as explained by Noah Millman, a “necessary component of the slave system practiced in the United States.”

There are many elements to political debate, and both sides of the divide can make strong points to buttress their memes.  As ideologies go, equating my rights–or lack thereof–to electoral votes is a pretty shitty way to morally equivocate a political point.  And it further hones in on why this law, and the practice of white supremacy is so egregious and so offensive.

I can appreciate the reader’s point on the subject–I just find it hard to stomach.  Thank you for the analysis, but  I would much rather have my humanity in full.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Whether you believe the founding fathers abhorred slavery, and consisted of a diverse collection of races is not as relevant as the narrative bringing it inside the margins of political thought.  The callous certainty of prominent political leaders– quick to create an air of false historical reference to buttress their arguments– is taking a more firm hand in our discourse.

It’s becoming more and more prevalent now to disavow any and all negative historical facts about the founders.  The plain truth is this: Most of them were slave owners, and they did pursue a constitutional course of racial, gender, and religious purity.

One of the most curious revisionist history cases is taking shape right now in the state of Tennessee.  Tennessee Tea Party activists are demanding state legislators make changes in the curriculum of the state’s students:

“Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States,” according to a document the two dozen activists distributed to reporters. “We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

Neglect and ill will?  On whose part?  The methodology of these individuals’ attempt to buffer their argument with the I hate America meme is dangerous. What constitutes the truth to these people?  It’s probably the same illogically narrow thinking that led Michele Bachmann to claim the purity of the founders and their ideology.

Its genesis originated as a means to undermine the struggle of black Americans, wading through the morass of racial inequality.  It is a deliberate attempt to white-wash American history, in order to prop up a false mythology.

There is a craven, menacing theme underlying this argument.  It’s the work of a cadre of revisionists, unbowed in their blatant attempt to unravel the American tapestry.  These individuals–of whom Bachmann is at the forefront–are deliberately shredding the very document they purport to hold sacred.  You cannot rewrite American history and rinse it clean of the bloody stains attached.  It’s a disservice to those individuals–black and white, men and women–who gave their lives to shear the path clear of the oppressive weeds of intolerance.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The self-parody of Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has taken on legendary status–and now it includes blustery blunderbuss senator John Kyl (R-AZ).  Here’s the genius that is DeMint’s Christian-like rant:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) called Democrats’ push to force through an arms control treaty and an omnibus spending bill right before Christmas “sacrilegious,” and warned he’d draw the process out to wage his objections.

“You can’t jam a major arms control treaty right before Christmas,” he told POLITICO. “What’s going on here is just wrong. This is the most sacred holiday for Christians. They did the same thing last year – they kept everybody here until (Christmas Eve) to force something down everybody’s throat. I think Americans are sick of this.”

Not to be outdone by DeMint’s tomfoolery, Kyl chimes in with a beauty of his own:

It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out without doing — frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff.

It’s nice to know these two want to finish their Christmas shopping, and could care less about the work they were elected to do.  I wonder if the Christmas holiday prevents American soldiers from fulfilling their obligations?  I’m pretty sure they continue to protect our country don’t they?  These clowns aren’t even taking their jobs seriously anymore.  It seems as if it’s a game to see who can create the biggest political stunt, and make the bigger ass of themselves.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image courtesy of Rosaformaine.com

I’ve often thought of a world where sensibilities and common good would trump ego and jaded ideologies.  How much more would we accomplish, and how much stronger would our nation become as a result?  Can No Labels achieve this, and can they save our political discourse?

Political gridlock is ingrained in everyday life in our nation’s capital.  Polarization has paralyzed our ability to get anything accomplished.  To be clear; there has always been a certain degree of partisanship in our politics–but in my eyes, there has never been this degree of incivility and callousness.

Case in point:  During the two years of President Barack Obama’s tenure, the GOP has made a concerted effort to literally stall every proposal and block every path taken by this administration.  It’s an unbelievable amount of delay and obstruction.  The unity exhibited by republicans is, in and of itself not that surprising–although nothing of the sort ever occurred during George W. Bush’s administration– even when democrats had more of a complaint with the legitimacy of his presidency than republicans ever could have with Obama’s.

I’m not one of those who felt cheated by the election of 2000, but I can understand some reticence on the part of democrats to accept Bush’s victory.  There was no such reticence with Obama’s decisive victory, yet you would think it was he who stile the election of 2008.

What is most shocking is the vilification by those on the far right of this president.  His citizenship, his political affiliation, and his family have all been attack and distorted in some fashion.  The banal, brutish, ignorant attacks belie an almost absurd blood lust by some on the right.  What did this president do to deserve these smears as soon as he took office?

This is not polarization– this is hatred–borne of supercilious fear.  When the leadership of a party resorts to using blatantly false rhetoric from the most extreme segment of its party as a means to advance their agenda–we have reached the tipping point.

Democrats aren’t socialists, anymore than republicans are tyrannical plutocrats.  This divisive meme– adopted by conservative leaders for the past two years– is not just insulting and irresponsible, it has become the medium for the breakdown in civility in our discourse.

Will No Labels change this?  The Tea Party managed to fuel their political machine with anger, fear, and grassroots organization (along with outside money).  Why would it not be possible for No Labels to fuel their movement with forward-thinking individuals who recognize the damage polarization is causing?

True bi-partisanship is not achieved simply by speaking it.  It takes hard work for ideologies to find middle ground, and strong constitutions to accept compromise–and curtail self-interests. Is No Labels up to the challenge?  While the rest of Washington cringes at the thought of changing the tax code, or restructuring social security, this new group has an opportunity to answer that question vehemently by leading on those issues.

I’m interested in seeing what they can do.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Want real evidence of what works and what doesn’t with unemployment insurance?  Ezra breaks it down quite simply here.

North Dakota, for instance, has a very low unemployment rate. It doesn’t make sense to have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits in a state where unemployment is 2.8 percent. That’s when unemployment benefits really do discourage work.

But it does make sense to have 99 weeks in Nevada, where the unemployment rate is 13.7 percent. That’s a state where the problem is too few jobs, not too few workers willing to take jobs. And that’s basically how the three-tiered unemployment insurance system is working: States with high unemployment are getting very long extensions, while states with lower unemployment are getting less. Here’s a map breaking it down

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here’s a great piece from Essential Presence, about the true nature of President Barack Obama’s politics.  The money shot:

During the 2008 presidential primaries the GOP went to the usual political tactic of stirring up the base through fear as they declared Barack Obama as the most liberal Senator in Congress. It was to Obama’s benefit to let that “most liberal” tag stick because, after all, he was in a heated battle with Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. But some liberals bought something Obama himself wasn’t selling…the GOP was.

Barack Obama was never this ultra-progressive knight in ebon-skin.  Never. Despite how some tried to paint him that way, he’s always been pragmatic, prudent, and measured in his politics.

The fact that liberals are bursting at the seems, because they feel duped due to some over night political conversion on his part is foolish.  He is what he’s always been.  This point–once progressives figure it out–will help the party immeasurably, especially since the electorate repudiated their brand of leadership.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Preach Sullivan:

My view is that the McConnell-Biden deal – for that’s who negotiated it – is great for Obama. Why? Because it will greatly add to economic growth in the next two years, the sine qua non of survival in this economic climate; because, once the Democrats had failed to pass a budget before the election, this was the best Obama could possibly get; and because Obama – especially in his riveting press conference yesterday – took the angry and beleaguered position of doing the post-partisan best for the American people, rather than trying to score one against the GOP or for the Dems.

(Emphasis is mine.) I’m so riveted by this dynamic, I’ll be focusing more on this in the next few days

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.