You can read anything into anything. El Rushbo thinks that the Democrats losing the New Jersey governorship is like Stalin losing Moscow. (Go here for a more nuanced analysis.) Republicans crow over their gubernatorial triumphs in New Jersey and Virginia just as they diminish the impact of their defeat in NY-23. Democrats will shrug and point out that neither defeat was unexpected and that the winner of NY-23 defeated a candidate of the extreme right.
It's true that there's more to this than meets the eye. In Jersey, budget deficits forced Democratic governor Jon Corzine reneged on a campaign pledge to reduce one of the nation's highest property tax rates. Virginia Democrats split their primary votes between two liberals and wound up nominating a conservative Democrat who did little to rally the party base. Moreover, Democrats had held the State House for eight years; Virginia voters arguably went for change.
Of greater interest to me is the NY-23 special election to fill a congressional vacancy created when President Obama nominated Republican congressman John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army. When 23rd District Republicans selected a moderate candidate to run for the seat, conservatives reacted by getting behind an ultraconservative (and comically ignorant) third-party candidate. This candidate gained support from mainstream Republican politicians and, shortly before the election, effectively forced the moderate from the race. The moderate endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, who won the election with 49% of the vote.
So what does it mean? While the 23rd went heavily for Barack Obama, it has also been traditionally represented by a Republican. It's one more loss for Republicans in a region of the country that trends inexorably blue. It also illustrates the dilemma posed by wingnut conservatism: In many parts of the country, it will be strong enough to push the party even further into extremism while simultaneously creating the conditions for defeat in the general election. Suits me...
Yesterday on Air America, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter opined that health care reform appears to be the "signature issue" of Barack Obama's first term, as if the significance of Obama's presidency could be distilled to Harry Reid's ability to wring 60 votes for reform out of the Senate. Health care reform is important, no question. But reducing Obama's first term to his success or failure on this one issue ignores the eight years of malign neglect by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration didn't merely fiddle while Rome burned: It poured fuel on the fire. Its policies led to the economic collapse of 2008. It did nothing while more and more Americans joined the ranks of the uninsured. It ignored the ongoing impact of climate change. It poured American blood and treasure into a catastrophic war in Iraq and supported a corrupt government in Afghanistan. It backed the Pakistani military instead of a rising middle class, thus fueling resentment toward America in a vital part of the world. It bungled and then politicized the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. In fact, it politicized virtually everything, including scientific fact. It attempted to thwart the Constitution by building executive power beyond anything imagined by the Founders or any previous presidency.
This is the context in which Barack Obama took office last January. His success or failure will not come about due to his performance on a single issue, and certainly can't be reduced to the kind of scorekeeping indulged in by the MSM. Obama's responsibility is nothing less than restoring the presidency as an effective, coequal branch of government that is respected home and abroad because it successfully sets and executes policies that advance American domestic and international interests. He must accomplish this without, I hope and pray, deepening the country's military commitment in Afghanistan, something I have come to believe would be an error of historic proportions.
Sadly, the burden is on him and the Democratic party alone, as the Republicans have utterly failed to recreate themselves as a serious opposition party. Their attitude toward heath care and global warming sum them up: They have no plan because they recognize no problem. As for Afghanistan, if we don't blindly follow the recommendations of the military, if we treat the generals with skepticism, we are dithering. Hurricane Katrina? Hey, "those people" shouldn't have been living there. In short, keep the blinders on, bend to the will of the party yahoos, and hope Obama fails. If that happens, they seem to believe, maybe they'll gat back in power, which is what it's all about.
History will measure Barack Obama's presidency by his ability to turn around the ship of state in exceptionally troubled waters and by how successfully he can reverse the disaster of the previous administration. Bush failed the country and left a nearly unprecedented mess to his successor. In some respects, Obama can't help but be an improvement. But he has to be more than that: He must restore a fundamental credibility to the office. His achievements must be of the kind that restores the faith of the people in their own government, that allows them to believe that it works for them and not for special interests...
The Backstreet Cultural Museum presents and preserves the unique cultural traditions of New Orleans' African-American society, including Mardi Gras Indians, jazz funerals, and Social Aid & Pleasure Clubs:
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has decided to include a public option as part of a health care reform bill. While this doesn't mean that the Senate will pass or even debate such a bill, it leaves me cautiously optimistic that the House and Senate will eventually pass a bill that includes a public option. The counter argument suggests that this is a negotiating ploy by Reid aimed at placating Senate liberals. While this is definitely a possibility, it's also true that polls show consistent support for a public option and that two months ago such a maneuver by Reid would have been unthinkable...
Paul Krugman writes that not only will health care reform pass, the reforms will work...
We're painting a wall today. Our first home improvement project! So far, we've taped the wall and washed it without getting a divorce. All that's left is the actual painting, plus removing the tape. This will add a dash of much needed color to the dining area...
Jacob Weisberg writes that the Obama administration is right to call out Fox News as not being a serious news network. He points out that Fox's response is typical: Deny the accusation with coverage that proves the point. What he can't understand is why legitimate news organizations have rushed to Fox's defense. I agree: Any competing news organization would be embarrassed to adopts Fox's standards. This doesn't have anything to do with Fox opinion programming, as despicable as it might be. It has everything to do with their blatant bias in news coverage, right down to uncritically reciting Republican talking points as hard news. No Democrat, no liberal commentator, no actual independent journalist should legitimize the Fox beast by appearing on its news programming...
This morning, I received email from my Congressman, Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) about his "fight" for health care reform:
I am eager to adopt reforms for health care that make sense, and to strengthen our health care system without raising costs, reducing choices, or bankrupting or nation. I'll keep fighting to make that happen.
Now, if Reichert has actually proposed anything along these lines, he's been might quiet about it. But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I wrote back giving him the chance to clarify his assertions:
Specifically, what reforms do you recommend? Specifically, how have you been fighting to make those happen? What is your evidence that any of the proposed legislation will "bankrupt our nation?"
We'll see how he replies. Reichert has generally been an ineffective, intellectual embarrassment to one of the most highly educated districts in the country. He has successfully positioned himself as a moderate while generally following the Republican party line...
On November 3, Washington voters will vote on Referendum 71, which, according to Wikipedia, would
The referendum was actually submitted to the ballot by anti-gay groups like Protect Marriage Washington, which campaigns to reject the referendum and thus invalidate the law. Enforcement of SB 5688 is suspended pending the outcome of the referendum.
Supporters of the referendum have been running this simple yet forceful television ad:
Protect Marriage Washington, of course, resorts to wrapping itself in the flag, AIDS hysteria, and nativism (homosexuality, it appears, is an un-American and a peculiarly Scandinavian perversion):
Just celebrated my first anniversary with my soulmate. Widowed father of two twenty-something sons. Transplanted Texan who after 19 years in the Pacific Northwest still marvels that there exists a place where August is the best month of the year and not hell's furnace. Red Sox fan since 1961 and currently feeling pretty good about it. But apprehensive (with good reason, it turns out) about the implications of the cover of the next Bruce Springsteen CD.
Posts
