Hear ye! Hear ye! The Pluribus Driver has moved! Phone the neighbors, wake the kids, and be sure to update your bookmark! My biting commentary and analysis can now be found HERE. Come on over and see what's new, won't you?
Thanks.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
And Then There Were Two
Anchorage, Alaska mayor Mark Begich has pulled far enough ahead in the race for Senate that he is being declared the winner. By a narrow margin, he has defeated six-term senator (and seven-count convicted felon) Ted Stevens.
What Begich's victory means is that the Democrats now have 58 seats in the Senate, with two races still to be decided. I would give Al Franken a slightly better than 50% chance of winning the Minnesota seat after the recount. In Georgia, the run-off election between incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin will take place at the beginning of December. At this point, whichever party can persuade more people to turn out will most likely win that one.
Why is it so important for the Democrats to hit that magic number of 60 senators? Normally, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but thanks to the scorched-earth policy of the win-at-all-costs Republican party, it matters a great deal. In the curent session of Congress, which started in January of '07 and ends next month, the Republican minority has become little more than obstructionists, which may explain their crushing defeat on November 4th.
Here is an example:
(Image borrowed from OpenCongress.org. I hope they don't mind.)
A cloture vote is a procedural tactic that requires 60 votes in order to end, thus allowing a bill to move forward. The current obstructionist Republicans have used the cloture vote almost twice as many times as any previous Senate. This is the main reason that the Democrats so desperately want to have 60 senators. It's also why Harry Reed and company wussed out and allowed Lieberman to retain his cherished chairmanships, even after he endorsed McCain, spoke at the RNC convention, and expressed doubt as to whether Obama is ready to be president.
The fringe benefit of Begich's victory is that Stevens won't be expelled from the Senate by his colleagues, and Sarah Palin won't have an opportunity to take over his seat. Whether the Democrats hit the magic 60 or not, at least we have that to be thankful for.
.
What Begich's victory means is that the Democrats now have 58 seats in the Senate, with two races still to be decided. I would give Al Franken a slightly better than 50% chance of winning the Minnesota seat after the recount. In Georgia, the run-off election between incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin will take place at the beginning of December. At this point, whichever party can persuade more people to turn out will most likely win that one.
Why is it so important for the Democrats to hit that magic number of 60 senators? Normally, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but thanks to the scorched-earth policy of the win-at-all-costs Republican party, it matters a great deal. In the curent session of Congress, which started in January of '07 and ends next month, the Republican minority has become little more than obstructionists, which may explain their crushing defeat on November 4th.
Here is an example:
A cloture vote is a procedural tactic that requires 60 votes in order to end, thus allowing a bill to move forward. The current obstructionist Republicans have used the cloture vote almost twice as many times as any previous Senate. This is the main reason that the Democrats so desperately want to have 60 senators. It's also why Harry Reed and company wussed out and allowed Lieberman to retain his cherished chairmanships, even after he endorsed McCain, spoke at the RNC convention, and expressed doubt as to whether Obama is ready to be president.
The fringe benefit of Begich's victory is that Stevens won't be expelled from the Senate by his colleagues, and Sarah Palin won't have an opportunity to take over his seat. Whether the Democrats hit the magic 60 or not, at least we have that to be thankful for.
.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Bush Is Getting The Respect He Has Earned
A couple days ago, in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro expressed his disgust in the treatment that President Bush has received by liberals and conservatives alike.
I would have laughed at Shapiro's distortion of reality, had it not become fodder for right-wing bloggers. Crocodile tears aplenty are being shed for poor, poor President Bush. All he ever wanted to do was lead the people that he loves in a manner befitting his respect for America.
NOT!
A more appropriate title for Shapiro's piece would have been, "The Treatment of America by Bush Has Been a Disgrace."
I could provide a laundry list of Bush's disrespectful actions, but I think providing one example should suffice. As quoted by Think Progress, Bush said this in April of 2004 [Emphasis in original]:
The thing about that is that Bush was lying. As he admitted in December of 2005, Bush signed the order for the NSA to spy on Americans without obtaining the required warrant from the FISA court. He went on to say that he had authorized that activity 30 times, and would continue to do so.
Bush apologists can argue that the illegal wiretapping program was necessary, but the fact remains that Bush lied. He said they were getting a court order for each wiretap when he knew damn well that they weren't.
There are many other examples of Bush's mistreatment of his office and his hatred of America, but I think one is enough to make my point. Bush lied to us. Not about getting his knob polished in the oval office, but about breaking the law. So don't come crying to me about how he is being so horribly maligned. If he hadn't cheated his way into office, thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, pissed on our Constitution, lied us into a war, etc., then maybe, maybe, a case could be made for his mistreatment. A president must earn the people's respect, though, and Mr. Bush has failed to do so.
From the Shapiro piece:
Well, that's just an insult to honest, hard working sewage plants everywhere.
.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have.
I would have laughed at Shapiro's distortion of reality, had it not become fodder for right-wing bloggers. Crocodile tears aplenty are being shed for poor, poor President Bush. All he ever wanted to do was lead the people that he loves in a manner befitting his respect for America.
NOT!
A more appropriate title for Shapiro's piece would have been, "The Treatment of America by Bush Has Been a Disgrace."
I could provide a laundry list of Bush's disrespectful actions, but I think providing one example should suffice. As quoted by Think Progress, Bush said this in April of 2004 [Emphasis in original]:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
The thing about that is that Bush was lying. As he admitted in December of 2005, Bush signed the order for the NSA to spy on Americans without obtaining the required warrant from the FISA court. He went on to say that he had authorized that activity 30 times, and would continue to do so.
Bush apologists can argue that the illegal wiretapping program was necessary, but the fact remains that Bush lied. He said they were getting a court order for each wiretap when he knew damn well that they weren't.
There are many other examples of Bush's mistreatment of his office and his hatred of America, but I think one is enough to make my point. Bush lied to us. Not about getting his knob polished in the oval office, but about breaking the law. So don't come crying to me about how he is being so horribly maligned. If he hadn't cheated his way into office, thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, pissed on our Constitution, lied us into a war, etc., then maybe, maybe, a case could be made for his mistreatment. A president must earn the people's respect, though, and Mr. Bush has failed to do so.
From the Shapiro piece:
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush.
Well, that's just an insult to honest, hard working sewage plants everywhere.
.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Maybe Nancy Pelosi Shouldn't Resign As Speaker... Yet.
Over this past summer, Congress has enjoyed some of the lowest approval ratings ever. At one point, they sunk even lower than Dick Cheney's. (Now that's low!) The cries from the right were that this was clear and ample evidence of the citizens' dissatisfaction with the Democratic majority. Seeing as the Democrats held control of the Senate by the slimmest of margins (so slim, in fact, that they let Joe Lieberman caucus with them,) and the entire House was up for reelection as well, November 4th provided the perfect opportunity for the voters to send a clear message to Congress.
And they did.
There are still, as I write this, three Senate races that have yet to be called. Nonetheless, the Democrats have gained six seats, giving them a strong majority of 57 to only 40 for the Republicans. In the House, the Democrats increased their majority from 236 to 254 (with eight still up in the air.)
Apparently, the voters have decided that not only do they approve of the Democrats being in charge, but want them to have more power, so they can start pushing forward with a Democratic agenda. (Why else give them a larger majority? If the voters wanted more "compromise," they would have left the margins as they were.) Plus, a Democrat won the presidential election by a landslide, so there goes the veto threat.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi had the following reaction:
So she understands the significance of the increased majority that the voters have given her. She can finally dust off that Liberal Agenda that's been stuffed in her desk drawer for the past almost two years. Will she have the guts to lead, actually lead, with this vote of confidence from the American people?
It would be a break from recent Democratic behavior, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
.
And they did.
There are still, as I write this, three Senate races that have yet to be called. Nonetheless, the Democrats have gained six seats, giving them a strong majority of 57 to only 40 for the Republicans. In the House, the Democrats increased their majority from 236 to 254 (with eight still up in the air.)
Apparently, the voters have decided that not only do they approve of the Democrats being in charge, but want them to have more power, so they can start pushing forward with a Democratic agenda. (Why else give them a larger majority? If the voters wanted more "compromise," they would have left the margins as they were.) Plus, a Democrat won the presidential election by a landslide, so there goes the veto threat.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi had the following reaction:
"I don't know what the final number will be," Pelosi said during a Wednesday afternoon news conference on Capitol Hill. "But it will be well over 250. It's a signal of the change that the American people want."
So she understands the significance of the increased majority that the voters have given her. She can finally dust off that Liberal Agenda that's been stuffed in her desk drawer for the past almost two years. Will she have the guts to lead, actually lead, with this vote of confidence from the American people?
It would be a break from recent Democratic behavior, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Election Reflection
At 8:25pm last night (Central time,) ABC News projected that Obama would win Ohio's electoral votes. It was at that moment that I knew he would be our next president. As George Stephanopoulos remarked, the McCain camp didn't have a road map to victory that didn't include Ohio. Since they had called Pennsylvania for Obama early in the night, I knew that McCain was sunk.
As the night wore on, I watched with the world as the electoral map shifted. Here is what it looked like after the 2004 election:
Wow, that's a mighty sea of red, isn't it?
Once Ohio flipped to blue, the cards started falling. All told, nine stated shifted. (I'm giving Obama North Carolina, even though it may not be "official" yet.) These are the states Obama won that were Bush states in '04:
The final map looks like this:
Notice how the blue wave has spread out from the northeast and from the west coast. Another pattern of interest is that in several of the red states that remained red, the margin of victory for McCain was considerably smaller than that of Bush in 2004. For example, in Montana, Bush won by a margin of 21%, but McCain scraped by with 3.5%. In North Dakota, Bush enjoyed a 27.8% victory; McCain managed just under 9%. Back in June, I predicted (incorrectly) that Texas would flip over to blue in this election. That was wishful thinking, I guess. I still think it will, though, as the demographic shifts and the population becomes more urban (which is an overall trend that does not bode well for the republican party.) Bush won Texas by 23% back in 2004; Obama closed that gap to just under 12%.
Back then, my electoral map looked like this:
I was wrong on a few states, but I was only off by 10 electoral votes, giving Obama 354, so that's pretty good, I think. (If I do say so myself.)
So ultimately, does this election represent a fundamental shift in the voting pattern of America, or is it simply a reaction to Bush fatigue? It's difficult to say, but I have a feeling it's more of the former than the latter. The talk has already started about what the GOP needs to do to start winning national elections again. My advice to conservatives would be to use this opportunity to realign the party with its conservative roots, abandoning the radical neocon influence that has permeated it in recent years.
But then, I'm a liberal, so what do I know?
As the night wore on, I watched with the world as the electoral map shifted. Here is what it looked like after the 2004 election:
Wow, that's a mighty sea of red, isn't it?
Once Ohio flipped to blue, the cards started falling. All told, nine stated shifted. (I'm giving Obama North Carolina, even though it may not be "official" yet.) These are the states Obama won that were Bush states in '04:
The final map looks like this:
Notice how the blue wave has spread out from the northeast and from the west coast. Another pattern of interest is that in several of the red states that remained red, the margin of victory for McCain was considerably smaller than that of Bush in 2004. For example, in Montana, Bush won by a margin of 21%, but McCain scraped by with 3.5%. In North Dakota, Bush enjoyed a 27.8% victory; McCain managed just under 9%. Back in June, I predicted (incorrectly) that Texas would flip over to blue in this election. That was wishful thinking, I guess. I still think it will, though, as the demographic shifts and the population becomes more urban (which is an overall trend that does not bode well for the republican party.) Bush won Texas by 23% back in 2004; Obama closed that gap to just under 12%.
Back then, my electoral map looked like this:
I was wrong on a few states, but I was only off by 10 electoral votes, giving Obama 354, so that's pretty good, I think. (If I do say so myself.)
So ultimately, does this election represent a fundamental shift in the voting pattern of America, or is it simply a reaction to Bush fatigue? It's difficult to say, but I have a feeling it's more of the former than the latter. The talk has already started about what the GOP needs to do to start winning national elections again. My advice to conservatives would be to use this opportunity to realign the party with its conservative roots, abandoning the radical neocon influence that has permeated it in recent years.
But then, I'm a liberal, so what do I know?
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Nancy Pelosi Should Resign As Speaker
In the current issue of Time magazine, in the 10 Questions section, Speaker Pelosi is asked this:
Which seems like a reasonable question, and is one I would have asked the speaker, if given the chance. The speaker's response was totally not what I expected.
So Nancy Pelosi Admits that the main reason she isn't pursuing impeachment is that the Bush administration isn't cooperating.
This is what passes for leadership in the Democratic party.
Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush?
Which seems like a reasonable question, and is one I would have asked the speaker, if given the chance. The speaker's response was totally not what I expected.
I took it off the table a long time ago. You can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda.
So Nancy Pelosi Admits that the main reason she isn't pursuing impeachment is that the Bush administration isn't cooperating.
This is what passes for leadership in the Democratic party.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Bush Pulls Switcheroo - On Himself
Last August, President Bush issued bold and decisive rhetoric about Iran. As reported in The Guardian:
He followed that up in May with a speech in Israel in which he labeled as an appeaser anyone who wished to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of terrorism, and compared these unnamed people to the Nazi appeasers of World War II.
From the New York Times:
This all fit in very nicely with Bush's saber rattling over Iran ever since his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. Imagine, then, my shock when I read that Bush had reversed his position and that, as The Guardian reported:
My first thought, of course, was that George Bush must be reading my blog, since just last month I pointed out why I felt that his hard-line stance toward Iran was the wrong way to go.
The true reason for Bush's about-face is difficult to pin down. He may be trying to salvage some sort of positive legacy in the Middle East, since his "roadmap to peace" led absolutely nowhere, and his wars are at this point not at all likely to succeed in the long term. Or he may truly be interested in negotiation with Iran for its own sake, to improve the prospects for peace in the region.
Whatever the motivation behind Bush turning into one of the appeasers that he lambasted only a couple months ago, since the alternative is a march to war, this is one Bush flip-flop that I can live with.
.
Mr Bush said Iran's nuclear programme would cast the Middle East "under a shadow of nuclear holocaust" and said the regime was the "the world's leading supporter of terrorism".
He followed that up in May with a speech in Israel in which he labeled as an appeaser anyone who wished to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of terrorism, and compared these unnamed people to the Nazi appeasers of World War II.
From the New York Times:
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said, in a speech otherwise devoted to spotlighting Israel’s friendship with the United States.
“We have an obligation,” he continued, “to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
This all fit in very nicely with Bush's saber rattling over Iran ever since his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. Imagine, then, my shock when I read that Bush had reversed his position and that, as The Guardian reported:
The US is planning to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a remarkable turnaround in policy by president George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office.
My first thought, of course, was that George Bush must be reading my blog, since just last month I pointed out why I felt that his hard-line stance toward Iran was the wrong way to go.
The true reason for Bush's about-face is difficult to pin down. He may be trying to salvage some sort of positive legacy in the Middle East, since his "roadmap to peace" led absolutely nowhere, and his wars are at this point not at all likely to succeed in the long term. Or he may truly be interested in negotiation with Iran for its own sake, to improve the prospects for peace in the region.
Whatever the motivation behind Bush turning into one of the appeasers that he lambasted only a couple months ago, since the alternative is a march to war, this is one Bush flip-flop that I can live with.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
