As Bush 41 jumps from a plane to celebrate his 85th birthday, Jimmy Carter, a few months younger, parachutes into the Middle East with his own foreign policy for the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and now Bush 43 is getting into the look-at-me act.
"Just because you're an old guy, you don't have to sit around drooling in the corner," the elder Bush said after landing safely in Kennebunkport last week. "Get out and do something. Get out and enjoy life."
Such fatherly advice may have inspired George W., who is now out drooling in public about his successor's efforts to fix an economy that fell apart on his watch.
"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," he tells applauding Pennsylvania business people. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."
The acrobatic aspect of W's act is to hammer Obama's policies while bending over backward to maintain a vow not to criticize his successor.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Jimmy Carter is plunging full steam ahead in the china shop, bashing Israel and meeting with Hamas leaders (while escaping a reported plot of theirs to kill him), with a reprise of his White House boobery that failed three decades ago to free American hostages in Iran or stop Castro from exporting criminals and mental cases to Florida with the Mariel boatlift.
During the transition earlier this year, Barack Obama kept repeating a mantra of "one president at a time," a prudent approach as well for those whose 15 minutes of fame has expired.
Bush 41's geriatric parachuting may only make his Secret Service detail a little jumpy, but Bush 43 and Carter have the potential to be seriously annoying with their antics in the Ex-Presidents' Flying Circus.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Damage Bush Is Still Doing
Frank Rich's New York Times column today, headed "Obama Can't Turn the Page on Bush," is a sad symptom of America's best and brightest still obsessing over eight years of a national nightmare to the detriment of what needs to be done now.
With an economy in shambles and the Mideast a potential nuclear tinderbox, the Obama Administration has its hands full without "a new commission, backed up by serious law enforcement, to shed light on where every body is buried."
Although the Bush gang--Cheney, Rumsfeld et al--was a disaster, the American people elected them twice (originally with the help of some of the now-outraged idealists who voted for Ralph Nader), but they are gone.
The only power they have now (pace Cheney) is to control our consciousness with debates over past torture that Obama has now outlawed, with squabbles over what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it, with new "revelations" that Rumsfeld was an arrogant, lying son of a bitch.
Nobody wants to forgive and forget, particularly those of us who spent years blogging and howling about Bush abuses, but living in the past is no recipe for undoing it.
Instead, it channels our passion into recrimination and self-righteousness when we should be getting on with the battles over health care reform, regulating Wall Street and the banks, finding the best balance of military power and diplomacy in the Middle East and the mind-numbing dilemmas that eight years of non-government have given us.
It will take brains not bile to concentrate on those issues, and that's where our energy should be going now.
What Bush, Cheney and the rest did was unforgivable, but the lessons of their folly are clear. Let them rant in interviews and memoirs as a sideshow like the political freaks they were and are, but get them off center stage. We don't need commissions to keep telling us what they did. The historians will do that job while we devote ourselves to cleaning up the mess and stop playing Madame Defarge.
With an economy in shambles and the Mideast a potential nuclear tinderbox, the Obama Administration has its hands full without "a new commission, backed up by serious law enforcement, to shed light on where every body is buried."
Although the Bush gang--Cheney, Rumsfeld et al--was a disaster, the American people elected them twice (originally with the help of some of the now-outraged idealists who voted for Ralph Nader), but they are gone.
The only power they have now (pace Cheney) is to control our consciousness with debates over past torture that Obama has now outlawed, with squabbles over what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it, with new "revelations" that Rumsfeld was an arrogant, lying son of a bitch.
Nobody wants to forgive and forget, particularly those of us who spent years blogging and howling about Bush abuses, but living in the past is no recipe for undoing it.
Instead, it channels our passion into recrimination and self-righteousness when we should be getting on with the battles over health care reform, regulating Wall Street and the banks, finding the best balance of military power and diplomacy in the Middle East and the mind-numbing dilemmas that eight years of non-government have given us.
It will take brains not bile to concentrate on those issues, and that's where our energy should be going now.
What Bush, Cheney and the rest did was unforgivable, but the lessons of their folly are clear. Let them rant in interviews and memoirs as a sideshow like the political freaks they were and are, but get them off center stage. We don't need commissions to keep telling us what they did. The historians will do that job while we devote ourselves to cleaning up the mess and stop playing Madame Defarge.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Can Obama Be Accidental?
On the evidence of his press conference, our president of 100 days seems so right for this critical time that it tempts a secular humanist to suspect Barack Obama came to power, not just by the natural selection of a brutal political campaign, but some more mysterious process of intelligent design.
How else to explain the qualities of mind and heart, and the eloquence to express them, that arrived in the White House just in time to deal with what he rightly calls "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" and a world filled with natural and man-made dangers from pandemics to nuclear weapons in the hands of extremists?
He answered questions on all these and more last night with a command of the issues and his own brand of idealistic pragmatism, tempered with the kind of humility unseen in past presidents who had much more reason to be self-effacing.
In answer to a question on that subject, Obama said he was "humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful but...just part of a much broader tapestry of American life...I can't just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want or, you know, turn on a switch and suddenly, you know, Congress falls in line...
"This metaphor has been used before, but the ship of state is an ocean liner. It's not a speedboat. And so the way we are constantly thinking about this issue, of how to bring about the changes that the American people need, is to say, if we can move this big battleship a few degrees in a different direction, you may not see all the consequences of that change a week from now or three months from now, but 10 years from now or 20 years from now, our kids will be able to look back and say, 'That was when we started getting serious about clean energy. That's when health care started to become more efficient and affordable. That's when we became serious about raising our standards in education.'"
Ten or twenty years from now, that generation of Americans may also look back and wonder if their parents and grandparents were smart or just lucky in picking a president to attempt all that.
How else to explain the qualities of mind and heart, and the eloquence to express them, that arrived in the White House just in time to deal with what he rightly calls "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" and a world filled with natural and man-made dangers from pandemics to nuclear weapons in the hands of extremists?
He answered questions on all these and more last night with a command of the issues and his own brand of idealistic pragmatism, tempered with the kind of humility unseen in past presidents who had much more reason to be self-effacing.
In answer to a question on that subject, Obama said he was "humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful but...just part of a much broader tapestry of American life...I can't just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want or, you know, turn on a switch and suddenly, you know, Congress falls in line...
"This metaphor has been used before, but the ship of state is an ocean liner. It's not a speedboat. And so the way we are constantly thinking about this issue, of how to bring about the changes that the American people need, is to say, if we can move this big battleship a few degrees in a different direction, you may not see all the consequences of that change a week from now or three months from now, but 10 years from now or 20 years from now, our kids will be able to look back and say, 'That was when we started getting serious about clean energy. That's when health care started to become more efficient and affordable. That's when we became serious about raising our standards in education.'"
Ten or twenty years from now, that generation of Americans may also look back and wonder if their parents and grandparents were smart or just lucky in picking a president to attempt all that.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Speech: "Yes We Will"
In Barack Obama style, optimism is not cheerleading but understanding the situation, finding the best answers and getting to work on them without delay. Tonight, we saw that approach, expressed with more assertion than we have seen before from the President in charge of saving the American economy.
“While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this,” he said in his address to Congress. “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”
If there is a word that means the opposite of "demagogue," Obama defined it tonight by devoting his speech to detailing the difficulties without minimizing them while stressing the steps needed to save jobs, save homes and get the banking system working again.
He told us "we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."
In his even-handed way, the President emphasized his desire "not to lay blame or look backwards," but added that "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament."
He acknowledged widespread resentment over the bank bailouts but made it clear that "we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job--our job--is to solve the problem" and promised "I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can't pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can't get a mortgage."
Beyond the immediate crisis, the President laid out long-range answers to energy independence, health care reform and improved education, insisting that they can't be delayed, because "to fully restore America's economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world."
It was not called a State of the Union address, but the Congress and the country got a good look at what political leadership should be that was underscored, for comic relief, by a lame Republican rebuttal from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, full of stale platitudes about what government shouldn't do at a moment in American history when only government can stop the bleeding that free enterprise has inflicted on the country.
“While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this,” he said in his address to Congress. “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”
If there is a word that means the opposite of "demagogue," Obama defined it tonight by devoting his speech to detailing the difficulties without minimizing them while stressing the steps needed to save jobs, save homes and get the banking system working again.
He told us "we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."
In his even-handed way, the President emphasized his desire "not to lay blame or look backwards," but added that "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament."
He acknowledged widespread resentment over the bank bailouts but made it clear that "we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job--our job--is to solve the problem" and promised "I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can't pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can't get a mortgage."
Beyond the immediate crisis, the President laid out long-range answers to energy independence, health care reform and improved education, insisting that they can't be delayed, because "to fully restore America's economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world."
It was not called a State of the Union address, but the Congress and the country got a good look at what political leadership should be that was underscored, for comic relief, by a lame Republican rebuttal from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, full of stale platitudes about what government shouldn't do at a moment in American history when only government can stop the bleeding that free enterprise has inflicted on the country.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Yes, We Did
Amid all the images, words and music of the day is the still astonishing fact that an African-American became president of the United States and reminded us that "a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."
As in his campaign, Barack Obama acknowledged the past but did not dwell on it. His Inaugural Address was about the future and its challenges:
"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act--not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions--who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."
To the world beyond our shores, the new president reaffirmed his intention to connect rather than conquer:
"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
At the close of the event witnessed by more people around the world than any other in history, it was 87-year-old Joseph Lowery who had the final word in his invocation and brought a smile to the face of the new president:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen"
Amen and Amen to that.
As in his campaign, Barack Obama acknowledged the past but did not dwell on it. His Inaugural Address was about the future and its challenges:
"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act--not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions--who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."
To the world beyond our shores, the new president reaffirmed his intention to connect rather than conquer:
"To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
At the close of the event witnessed by more people around the world than any other in history, it was 87-year-old Joseph Lowery who had the final word in his invocation and brought a smile to the face of the new president:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen"
Amen and Amen to that.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
No Traction for McCain on the High Road
By all measures, Barack Obama won by a wide margin tonight's debate, which was focused on issues, with no mention of Sarah Palin or the smears she has been spreading out on the McCain campaign's low road.
For the first hour, the Republican candidate's demeanor consisted of an odd Uriah Heep cringe with a cajoling, almost imploring tone suggesting that McCain was trying very hard to project sincerity in his prescriptions for the economy. Only in the final thirty minutes, in the segment on foreign policy, did he stand tall and sound confidently presidential.
Once again, as in his refusal to look at or address Obama directly in the first debate, there was a dismissive attitude, reflected in his finger-pointing reference to "that one" as he criticized Obama's vote on an energy bill.
Substantively, Obama was crisp and responsive in outlining what he would do about the economy, but seemed more defensive than he needed to be in countering McCain's charges that his statements on Pakistan reflected inexperience.
But the net effect tonight was to reinforce Obama's image as presidential and forward-looking while underscoring McCain's age and the weight of the Bush years that he is carrying in the campaign.
In a pre-debate CNN poll today, 55 percent of registered voters said that Obama "cares more about people like you," while 35 percent said McCain cares more than Obama. On the question of who has a clearer plan to solve the country's problems, Obama held a 15-point lead over McCain, 48 to 33 percent.
When it was over, Obama's advantage in the CNN instant polling had widened on the crucial questions of leadership.
Tomorrow, McCain and Palin will be back out on the low road, dispensing more of the dirt of the last week, but voters worried about their jobs and their homes are not likely to want to wallow in it.
For the first hour, the Republican candidate's demeanor consisted of an odd Uriah Heep cringe with a cajoling, almost imploring tone suggesting that McCain was trying very hard to project sincerity in his prescriptions for the economy. Only in the final thirty minutes, in the segment on foreign policy, did he stand tall and sound confidently presidential.
Once again, as in his refusal to look at or address Obama directly in the first debate, there was a dismissive attitude, reflected in his finger-pointing reference to "that one" as he criticized Obama's vote on an energy bill.
Substantively, Obama was crisp and responsive in outlining what he would do about the economy, but seemed more defensive than he needed to be in countering McCain's charges that his statements on Pakistan reflected inexperience.
But the net effect tonight was to reinforce Obama's image as presidential and forward-looking while underscoring McCain's age and the weight of the Bush years that he is carrying in the campaign.
In a pre-debate CNN poll today, 55 percent of registered voters said that Obama "cares more about people like you," while 35 percent said McCain cares more than Obama. On the question of who has a clearer plan to solve the country's problems, Obama held a 15-point lead over McCain, 48 to 33 percent.
When it was over, Obama's advantage in the CNN instant polling had widened on the crucial questions of leadership.
Tomorrow, McCain and Palin will be back out on the low road, dispensing more of the dirt of the last week, but voters worried about their jobs and their homes are not likely to want to wallow in it.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Demeanor Debate
John McCain spent 90 minutes tonight telling voters Barack Obama "doesn't understand" what America is facing, as Obama demonstrated a broad grasp of the 21st century issues besetting the economy and national security.
Body language was revealing in McCain's tight grin that occasionally morphed into a smirk under criticism, while Obama featured a relaxed smile and at least half a dozen times responded with a generous "John is right, but..."
Behind the difference in demeanor was the familiar clash of experience vs. change that is at the heart of the contest, with McCain distancing himself from Bush-Cheney and impressively name-dropping world leaders (but getting wrong the new president of Pakistan) to persuade voters that Obama is too naïve to deal with a dangerous world.
There was no defining "gotcha" moment but, in light of Obama's need to show persuadable voters that he has the intellect and disposition to occupy the Oval Office, he made progress as did McCain by appearing forceful and knowing to offset doubts about his age and hair-trigger temper.
Most of the time, the candidates talked past each other but after McCain had hammered away at the need to cut government spending, Obama confronted him with:
"John, it's been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits you voted for almost all of his budgets. So to stand here and after eight years and say that you're going to lead on controlling spending...is, you know, kind of hard to swallow."
What is unknowable is how the debate affected the unspoken subtext of this election--race.
The site itself was a third presence tonight, the University of Mississippi in Oxford, where 46 years ago Army troops surrounded James Meredith as he integrated "Ole Miss" amid riots and bloodshed.
Meredith himself, who later became a Republican on the staff of Sen. Jesse Helms, is a cranky reminder of the complexity of race in the South. He declined an invitation to the debate. "My wife and son will be there," he told the Washington Post. "I'm taking care of the grandbabies."
But those of my generation can't overlook the history that, when Meredith entered the university, the interracial marriage of Barack Obama's parents was illegal there, and that John McCain's great-great grandfather had owned a plantation nearby.
Almost half a century later, things have changed but race is still an issue there and in much of America and will affect the result of this election, no matter how well the candidates performed tonight.
Body language was revealing in McCain's tight grin that occasionally morphed into a smirk under criticism, while Obama featured a relaxed smile and at least half a dozen times responded with a generous "John is right, but..."
Behind the difference in demeanor was the familiar clash of experience vs. change that is at the heart of the contest, with McCain distancing himself from Bush-Cheney and impressively name-dropping world leaders (but getting wrong the new president of Pakistan) to persuade voters that Obama is too naïve to deal with a dangerous world.
There was no defining "gotcha" moment but, in light of Obama's need to show persuadable voters that he has the intellect and disposition to occupy the Oval Office, he made progress as did McCain by appearing forceful and knowing to offset doubts about his age and hair-trigger temper.
Most of the time, the candidates talked past each other but after McCain had hammered away at the need to cut government spending, Obama confronted him with:
"John, it's been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits you voted for almost all of his budgets. So to stand here and after eight years and say that you're going to lead on controlling spending...is, you know, kind of hard to swallow."
What is unknowable is how the debate affected the unspoken subtext of this election--race.
The site itself was a third presence tonight, the University of Mississippi in Oxford, where 46 years ago Army troops surrounded James Meredith as he integrated "Ole Miss" amid riots and bloodshed.
Meredith himself, who later became a Republican on the staff of Sen. Jesse Helms, is a cranky reminder of the complexity of race in the South. He declined an invitation to the debate. "My wife and son will be there," he told the Washington Post. "I'm taking care of the grandbabies."
But those of my generation can't overlook the history that, when Meredith entered the university, the interracial marriage of Barack Obama's parents was illegal there, and that John McCain's great-great grandfather had owned a plantation nearby.
Almost half a century later, things have changed but race is still an issue there and in much of America and will affect the result of this election, no matter how well the candidates performed tonight.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Obama-McCain Numbers Game
Reading tea leaves from the new November polls is as hard as it was a year ago to see what was really going behind the numbers that showed Hillary Clinton running away with the Democratic nomination.
Now, despite post-Bush Republican disarray, the new Pew poll shows "a tightening general election matchup between Obama and McCain" under a headline that says, "McCain's Negatives Mostly Political, Obama's More Personal."
It's tempting to decode that as racism, but the reasons are surely more complicated.
For a start, there is the question of familiarity. Like Clinton, McCain has been in national politics much longer than Obama with a reputation for being strong-minded and independent, an edge that may account for some of his support as it did in the case of the former First Lady last year among voters who don't follow politics closely.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama are still fresh, as reflected in figures that show only 46 percent of her supporters saying the party will unite behind him in November.
Over the next five months, Democrats will be faced with healing those wounds and winning over Obama doubters who find his promise of change threatening rather than hopeful.
The candidate himself will have to do the heavy lifting to persuade the 82 percent of voters unhappy with the way things are going that he is a better answer to their disaffection than a Republican, no matter how personable, who will continue Bush's policies on the economy and the war in Iraq.
Obama's choice of a running mate will weigh heavily in that equation. After that, he surely will have to go to Iraq and show himself as a potential commander-in-chief who can connect with the troops while winning the respect of their senior officers, even as he proposes to change the policies that have mired them there.
The election is his to lose, no matter what the tea leaves say now.
Now, despite post-Bush Republican disarray, the new Pew poll shows "a tightening general election matchup between Obama and McCain" under a headline that says, "McCain's Negatives Mostly Political, Obama's More Personal."
It's tempting to decode that as racism, but the reasons are surely more complicated.
For a start, there is the question of familiarity. Like Clinton, McCain has been in national politics much longer than Obama with a reputation for being strong-minded and independent, an edge that may account for some of his support as it did in the case of the former First Lady last year among voters who don't follow politics closely.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama are still fresh, as reflected in figures that show only 46 percent of her supporters saying the party will unite behind him in November.
Over the next five months, Democrats will be faced with healing those wounds and winning over Obama doubters who find his promise of change threatening rather than hopeful.
The candidate himself will have to do the heavy lifting to persuade the 82 percent of voters unhappy with the way things are going that he is a better answer to their disaffection than a Republican, no matter how personable, who will continue Bush's policies on the economy and the war in Iraq.
Obama's choice of a running mate will weigh heavily in that equation. After that, he surely will have to go to Iraq and show himself as a potential commander-in-chief who can connect with the troops while winning the respect of their senior officers, even as he proposes to change the policies that have mired them there.
The election is his to lose, no matter what the tea leaves say now.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The Subtext of '08
What do we know about voters' desires after watching them winnow down a score of presidential candidates to three?
To start, George W. Bush has ruined their taste for the usual white middle-aged male, or we wouldn't be left with a woman, an African-American and a Senior Citizen who doesn't play well with others in the political sandbox.
What the survivors have in common is that, among the choices available, Clinton, Obama and McCain seemed the least likely to lie to them all the time, a rarity for most voters under 40 after their years of Bill Clinton when the testosterone was high and Bush all the time.
"Authenticity" became the buzz word, and a sensed lack of it in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, among the others, certainly played a part in their elimination. Obama and McCain are obviously who they are, and even Hillary Clinton, although faulted by some for calculation, is no chameleon.
When the Obama-Clinton choice is made, authenticity will give way to a ramped-up argument about experience vs. change, particularly if Obama is the Democrat candidate. At the edges there will be "too liberal" and "not conservative enough" grumbling, but the essence of the campaign will be how far voters want to go in escaping the Bush years to find something better.
McCain will offer some variations on conservative orthodoxy and a new, improved Iraq war rather than a rejection of its rationale. Either Democrat will promise not just to shuffle the deck on the economy and the damage to individual rights but go back to the traditional rules of the game and get out of a misbegotten war as quickly as possible.
When the shouting is over and the ballots are counted, we will have an unfamiliar figure in the White House--a woman, an African-American or the oldest maverick ever--not the stereotypical middle-aged man from Central Casting.
That much has already been decided, and it would be hard for anyone to fault the electorate for that.
To start, George W. Bush has ruined their taste for the usual white middle-aged male, or we wouldn't be left with a woman, an African-American and a Senior Citizen who doesn't play well with others in the political sandbox.
What the survivors have in common is that, among the choices available, Clinton, Obama and McCain seemed the least likely to lie to them all the time, a rarity for most voters under 40 after their years of Bill Clinton when the testosterone was high and Bush all the time.
"Authenticity" became the buzz word, and a sensed lack of it in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, among the others, certainly played a part in their elimination. Obama and McCain are obviously who they are, and even Hillary Clinton, although faulted by some for calculation, is no chameleon.
When the Obama-Clinton choice is made, authenticity will give way to a ramped-up argument about experience vs. change, particularly if Obama is the Democrat candidate. At the edges there will be "too liberal" and "not conservative enough" grumbling, but the essence of the campaign will be how far voters want to go in escaping the Bush years to find something better.
McCain will offer some variations on conservative orthodoxy and a new, improved Iraq war rather than a rejection of its rationale. Either Democrat will promise not just to shuffle the deck on the economy and the damage to individual rights but go back to the traditional rules of the game and get out of a misbegotten war as quickly as possible.
When the shouting is over and the ballots are counted, we will have an unfamiliar figure in the White House--a woman, an African-American or the oldest maverick ever--not the stereotypical middle-aged man from Central Casting.
That much has already been decided, and it would be hard for anyone to fault the electorate for that.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Winnowing the Fields in Iowa
As they get ready to do whatever it is they do, Iowans look more like they are picking prize livestock at a fair than choosing the next Leader of the Free World.
Unlike the Congressional elections of November 2006, there is less talk about Iraq, government corruption or a worrisome economy than about the candidates' character, style and commitment to "change."
Getting supporters among a fraction of the state's voters to caucus sites in the freezing cold, winning over non-supporters to become their fallback choices and placing a strong second, third or fourth are the means by which candidates will leave Iowa with a perceived victory or defeat.
They have a curious way of winnowing the fields in this heartland state.
Unlike the Congressional elections of November 2006, there is less talk about Iraq, government corruption or a worrisome economy than about the candidates' character, style and commitment to "change."
Getting supporters among a fraction of the state's voters to caucus sites in the freezing cold, winning over non-supporters to become their fallback choices and placing a strong second, third or fourth are the means by which candidates will leave Iowa with a perceived victory or defeat.
They have a curious way of winnowing the fields in this heartland state.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Summer of Our Discontent
New polls show Americans unhappy with just about everything. “A very sour mood” is the Gallup conclusion.
Only 24 percent say they are satisfied “with the way things are going,” a figure that hasn’t been this low since 1992. At that time, Bill Clinton’s advisers saw a reason (“It’s the economy, stupid”) and used it to get to the White House.
According to Gallup, Americans now worry about the economy, their jobs, high gasoline prices and, since politicians started yapping about it, immigration. Yet, by most measures, the economy is doing well enough, and so is the stock market.
It’s easy to see how the war in Iraq is causing so much frustration, with voters giving the President low marks and the Congress they elected to fix things even worse approval ratings, an all-time low of 14 percent.
What’s harder to measure is the free-floating anxiety behind the numbers. How much is due to the Republican drumbeat of “If we don’t fight them there, they’ll follow us here?” How much to Democratic impotence and in-fighting over how to get us out of Iraq? How much to the noisy distrust and disgust over everything in our public life, fueled by caustic cable-news anchors and bilious bloggers competing to be heard?
Our national mood disorder isn’t helped by the endless Presidential campaign, which is getting more negative as candidates feel the pressure mounting. But somewhere in all this, there may be an opportunity for one of them to do what Ronald Reagan did in the wake of Vietnam and rampant inflation with a “Morning in America” vision.
If Gallup is right, the country could be ready for it.
Only 24 percent say they are satisfied “with the way things are going,” a figure that hasn’t been this low since 1992. At that time, Bill Clinton’s advisers saw a reason (“It’s the economy, stupid”) and used it to get to the White House.
According to Gallup, Americans now worry about the economy, their jobs, high gasoline prices and, since politicians started yapping about it, immigration. Yet, by most measures, the economy is doing well enough, and so is the stock market.
It’s easy to see how the war in Iraq is causing so much frustration, with voters giving the President low marks and the Congress they elected to fix things even worse approval ratings, an all-time low of 14 percent.
What’s harder to measure is the free-floating anxiety behind the numbers. How much is due to the Republican drumbeat of “If we don’t fight them there, they’ll follow us here?” How much to Democratic impotence and in-fighting over how to get us out of Iraq? How much to the noisy distrust and disgust over everything in our public life, fueled by caustic cable-news anchors and bilious bloggers competing to be heard?
Our national mood disorder isn’t helped by the endless Presidential campaign, which is getting more negative as candidates feel the pressure mounting. But somewhere in all this, there may be an opportunity for one of them to do what Ronald Reagan did in the wake of Vietnam and rampant inflation with a “Morning in America” vision.
If Gallup is right, the country could be ready for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)