Am I ALWAYS A Partisan Hack?
Of course, I’d like to think not…so let me cross my party twice here:
First, it’s about time Al Franken was seated. I don’t like him, and I don’t think he’ll add anything but rancor to the Senate (surprise me, Al, surprise me)…but this has gone on long enough. I’m glad Coleman finally conceded, but in late June? Too much…
Also, it’s time for Mark Sanford to get his butt out of office. The latest revelations about even more trips to his mistress, an investigation by the attorney general into use of funds, and now news that he had even more affairs…well, my sympathy to his family, but this is a man of very, very poor judgment, and I’m just glad we found out now, given his former high profile nationally. Go away now, we’ve had enough…
Agreed.
Months after it became obvious that he lost, Mark Coleman kept up a court challenge for the sole purpose of depriving Minnesota voters of being represented by the man they elected, for the purely partisan reason of keeping the Democrats from gaining a sixtieth Senate seat for as long as possible. For that, he should be in the penalty box for years.
As for Sanford: I’m uninterested in the adultery, but being AWOL is simple dereliction of duty. He should be relegated to a life of being on Dr. Phil.
However – let’s face it – while they may not represent the views of the RNC, you’re hardly going out on a limb here. The only Republicans who seem to want Sanford to stick around are those who don’t want to give the advantage to the Lieutenant Governor in 2010, when he can run as an independent. And nobody can say with a straight face that Norm Coleman’s litigation was to serve Minnesota voters. How about violating Republican orthodoxy and agreeing with the following (eminently reasonable) statements:
1) Obama’s stimulus plan is working, as evidenced by the stabilization of the financial system and the economy.
2) The Obama administration’s policies towards the Middle East, combined with the speech in Cairo, have contributed to progress in the region, as evidenced by the recent election in Lebanon, diplomatic relations with Syria, and peace feelers sent out by Hezbollah.
3) Obama has chosen a first-rate group of people to staff his administration (as well as Souter’s seat on the Court).
sorry, when he can run as an incumbent (not independent)
Peter, I’d love to agree with you, but I just don’t.
On #1, what planet are you living on? Obama said we had to pass his stimulus or unemployment might reach 10%. Well…I don’t think he had this in mind. Consumer confidence went down again in June, and the housing market remains a disaster. The deepest recession since at least 1981 has shown no response at all to the stimulus, in my view.
#2: it’s a huge stretch to say Obama’s policies in the Middle East contributed to anything positive yet. For one thing, most of his policies are continuations of the Bush administration’s policies. Bush also called Islam a religion of peace and called for a Palestinian state. The repression of the Iranian protesters was certainly no victory, the return of almost daily car bombings in Iraq is certainly no victory (and a direct consequence of the U.S. pulling out of Iraqi cities, the only real change of consequence that Obama has pushed through)…
#3. Well, mostly…but the Supreme Court struck down a key decision of Sotomayor’s just recently, and while I see no reason not to confirm her, I see no reason to celebrate her as an outstanding pick, either. Way too premature…
1) Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and typically rises well after an economic cycle hits bottom. Leading economic indicators are up for two consecutive months, the number of people filing first time unemployment claims is decreasing, and the risk premium has evaporated from the fixed income markets. Systemic collapse is no longer on the table. Considering how bad things were in fourth and first quarters, this is good enough for me.
2) Obama’s policies in the Middle East are very different from Bush’s. Obama has put public pressure on Israel to freeze settlements, compared with Bush’s tacit acceptance of them. Obama opened up diplomatic relations with Syria and (pre-election) signaled a willingness to talk to Iran. Most striking is the difference in tone with the Bush administration. His first press interview as President was with Al Jezeera, and he made it a priority to visit a Muslim country in his first 100 days. Could you imagine Bush giving a speech like the one Obama gave in Cairo?
I would not push the effects of the change in tone and policy too far, but it was striking that a week or so after the Cairo speech – which was followed intently throughout the Muslim world – a pro-American government was elected in Lebanon, defying all predictions.
3) The fact that a decision of Sotomayor was reversed by a 5-4 decision means nothing. Could just have easily gone the other way.
Peter, I guess Obama didn’t realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator, then, since he’s the one that set the expectation that the stimulus plan would prevent unemployment from reaching the levels that it, in fact, has reached.
Bush gave speeches very similar to Obama’s on the Middle East. Two big differences: Obama avoided the use of the word “terror” and, of course, the location. I gave Obama praise for the speech at the time, and I stand by it. But it wasn’t a radical departure from Bush – the differences were more in style, location, and nuance…and I welcome any movement towards the West, including in Lebanon, but Lebanon has been drifting from Syria since – well, since the Bush administration.
Obama has been better than I expected on foreign affairs – I’m not trying to nitpick.
On domestic affairs, he’s been worse…
Two stories today that belie your mystifying trumpeting of Obama’s economic record – payrolls fell worse than expected (we’re still shedding nearly half a million jobs a month), and mortgage applications hit a 7-month low.
Partisanship aside, I think any objective view of the stimulus would acknowledge that it largely failed in its primary task of raising employment…
Troops moving out of cities is due to the SoFA negotiated by Bush, no?
Also from today’s news: Manufacturing in the U.S. shrank in June at the slowest pace in 10 months, another sign the worst of the recession may be over.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGoPQQDmo_NA
Unemployment claims are high but they are being filed at a declining rate. Mortgage applications are down largely because interest rates have risen in expectation of economic growth – you can’t get a sub-5% mortgage any more. More like 6 or 6 1/2%. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I don’t pretend that everything is hunky dory, but the economy has stopped its horrifying decline – as they were last winter, with a credit freeze and major institutions going belly up day after day – and it’s showing unmistakable signs of life. The stimulus plan was enacted about four months ago, and the bulk of the money hasn’t been spent. So far, so good.
Well, Fargus, it’s true Bush agreed to the concept – I’m thinking that it was Obama that set the date, if my memory is not tricking me…but if not, it bolsters my point further that Obama’s policy in the Middle East has largely been a continuation of Bush’s, no?…
it’s worth noting that while the decision was 5-4, not a single Justice agreed with her decision to grant summary judgment in the case.
However, I think that Sotomayor will be a decent Justice. I am pretty certain that were I a sitting U.S. Senator, I would vote to confirm.
I care little about the idealogies of SC nominees. To me there are only three important questions.
1. Does the person have the qualifications for the job?
2. Does the person know and understand the role of the Court?
3. Does the person know and understand the role of a Justice on the Court?
One could argue that 2 and 3 are idealogical questions, but in fact, they should not be. And the nominee must be granted some leeway here on even those issues in the 21st century. From what I’ve seen so far, she fits under 1 and 2, and I doubt she will have any problems with 3. We’ll see at the overblown and ridiculous confirmation hearings.
FWIW I would vote against confirming Ginsberg and she was confirmed 99-0 by a Republican Senate. But I’d vote for Sotomayor.
As for Sanford, I’m not following the story close enough to have an opinion, nor do I think mine or even Mark’s opinion on the subject are relevant. He’s not our governor.
For Franken, he’s a clown, but I’m glad it’s over, and I have felt for some time that Coleman should let it go.
The real problem that both this and Bush v. Gore showed is that we can not trust our current system when the ballot count is extremely close. There will always be those on both sides who feel that that the system was unjust. 8 years since Bush v. Gore, and we still haven’t fixed anything. Maybe it’s unfixable, but I’d like to think otherwise.
I can’t recall, did Peter give Bush credit for slower negative growth?
On foreign policy, I especially am enjoying watching Obama prop up our enemies in Iran and undermine our friends in Honduras. Well played Mr. Obama, well played.
On Sanford: judgment is a relevant consideration when evaluating the capabilities of a candidate or, in this case, a sitting Governor. I agree with my friends here that Sanford has displayed a considerable lack of judgment in his personal behavior and, by disappearing for several days, his professional responsibilities. His actions upon his return, the on-going confessions and such, are equally bizarre and concerning. If I were a citizen of his State I’d be screaming for his removal. Too bad the Honduran military is busy right now.
Mark, I thought Obama had said the stimulus had to be passed ASAP to keep unemployment from getiing above 8%. Also, I believe less than 20% of it has been spent thus far.
Aaron, 8% sounds about right…but I remember someone saying, perhaps it was Krugman, who’s now Obama’s big cheerleader, that without the stimulus, we would hit 10% unemployment. Sure looks like we hit it WITH the stimulus. Either the stimulus hasn’t helped or it would have been at 12% without it, I guess…but either way, eventually, the economic cycle would turn the other way…and when the cycle turns, we’ll hear it was the stimulus. It’s a win-win for the Krugmans of the world – they can say it would have been so much worse now, and later, they’ll say, see? It worked!…