Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Today in politics

It's the first day of November. The midterm election is just days away. And, just like the script says, John Kerry makes an offhand comment interpreted as insulting soldiers, all for a laugh. (Talk about "Here it goes again" . . .)

Free Republic posted this picture, which is a perfectly defensible response to the purported meaning of the Kerry comment:



Justin thinks that the Democrats will win the House, not the Senate. I'm skeptical about whether they can win anything, even with it being handed to them on a silver platter. John Kerry's stupidity is just a symptom of a much larger ineffectiveness that the majority of Democrats seem to find inescapable.

As crazy as it sounds, at least Al Sharpton had something intelligent to say today. He's right that focusing on moral issues is not a way to cure the majority of society's problems. Still, I don't know that bashing the Christian right is the way to change things.

And finally, from Professor Geoffrey R. Stone's commentary in the Chicago Tribune, What it means to be a liberal, here are his 10 defining characteristics:

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."


I don't know that it's exhaustive, but it's a good start.

Update: Michael J. Fox says that even Alex P. Keaton would be fed up with the Republicans over stem-cell research. I think that might be an exaggeration. For the record, Alex Keaton was a fan of Reagan and Nixon. And, from what I've been told, even though those that hew closely to a Conservative political philosophy (small government, lassez-faire, individual liberty, etc.) aren't big fans of the current administration, they wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater by voting for the Dems.

More importantly, read Lou Dobbs, who says that no matter which major party wins, middle class America is getting screwed:

It's amazing what a mere $2.6 billion can buy in a democracy. That's what the two parties will have spent in their campaigns leading up to these midterm elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And most of that money for Democrats and Republicans alike comes from corporate America. So what will be the outcome of this election? The only certainty is that corporate America will get what it's paid for, and that's more of the same.

***

While the name of the party in charge may change from Republican to Democrat, it's really only a branding issue. And just as my friend James Mtume says, it's still the same bird, just a different wing. And believe me, middle-class America will still be getting the bird.

Neither party at the national or local level is talking about what to do about the education crisis in our public schools. Both parties seem to think a 10-year plan to measure the decline of our schools through the No Child Left Behind law is an adequate response to what is an outright emergency.

Both parties seem happily content to give their multinational corporate masters exactly what they want in the form of so-called free trade, which has cost millions of middle-class Americans their jobs to outsourcing and off-shoring of manufacturing production to cheap overseas labor markets.

And God forbid we should disturb the orthodoxies of both parties that insist that we not secure our borders and ports, despite radical Islamist terrorist threats, the multibillion-dollar illegal drug trade and what is nothing less than an invasion of illegal aliens into this country.


I wish I had written that line about the bird. Fucking brilliant.


14 comments:

DSL said...

I can't help it; I find Al Sharpton incredibly entertaining. Not that I'll vote for him, but it's rare to find a personality in politics.

Ryane said...

Yes, the bird comment was brilliant...

Justin S. said...

Dara,

I was going to post about Kerry tonight, but it's late and I'm not going to get around to it. Maybe tomorrow.

The gist of this is I don't think this is Kerry's fault. Kerry did not insult the troops... He spoke in the very not straightfoward Kerry-esque way we've come to expect, but he was not insulting the troops.

Karl Rove, Free Republic, Rush Limbaugh and the Bush machine are intentionally misinterpreting the comments. Read the line in context in the speech and that's clear.

This is classic Rovian tactics, and Kerry and the Dems have bungled the response and it's stayed in the headlines for three days. But if it wasn't Kerry, it would have been something else. They would have found something to latch onto even if this never happened.

I don't think it all matters much anyway. This does nothing to change my mind that the Dems take the House and lose the Senate.

dara said...

Debby: Sharpton's a buffoon, but he's amusing. And once in a while, he's right.

Ryane: It was clever.

Justin: Kerry was careless -- especially since it wasn't going to hurt him, but could hurt the party. And lord knows that when one of the Republicans says anything like that, we jump all over it. Turnabout is fair play.

Sometimes the best thing you can do is shut the hell up.

Justin S. said...

When it comes down to it, all Kerry did was say "you get stuck in Iraq" instead of "you get US stuck in Iraq."

Careless or not, something like this was bound to happen, and the Dem response is what really matters here, and they botched it.

The White's said...

As the George Will on this board (I wish), here we go:

Lots to discuss. First, I agree with Justin - Dems take the House, Reps keep the Senate by 1 or 2. Surprisingly, I am ok with this, even though Comrade Pelosi (haha) scares me a little as leader.

Kerry - again, it is not always the intent of somthing said, it is just how it sounds, and politicians should know when they say something sounding stupid (Lott did not mean anything by his Thurmond comment, for example, but he should have known better - I think Kerry the same way). Didn't Bush make better grades than Kerry at Yale? They are both elitist jokes in my book.

Another thing I agree with is that with either party, the middle class gets screwed. If you sit on your ass and do nothing, our government takes care of you, and if you are rich, well you are taken care of. But the middle class . . . we get the boot up the ass.

Strangely I believe the liberal list is actually pretty good (not like that other list that was a blatant lie and misrepresentation of a "conservative", neo-con repb yes, conservative no). I guess I stay conservative because I see how the failed welfare state is where my hard-earned tax dollars go to people who never pay any taxes, sit on their ass, and let the government take care of them. If private charities had control, I would think they would do a better job of giving out healthcare, and if they pandered to the lazy, then we should not give our money to them (yes, this may not be the most practical thing in the world!) However, the one I disagree with is the freedom of debate. A conservative, no matter how crazily out there, can't give their position w/o liberals throwing things are them, interrupting their speeches, etc., especially at a university campus (look at Allen's heckler). And maybe I am picking out a few to the detriment of the whole, but you rarely hear about conservatives doing it b/c we are minding our own business and working to pay the benefits of the welfare class. If you want freedom, both sides should have the right to speak, and I will die for that right for all parties to be heard fairly and civilly.

Finally, I agree with Sharpton to some extent, but I also think there is compromise on same-sex marriage and abortion that the extremes on both ends do not want, and many times the judges are extreme, so things never get compromised. And, liberal judges seem to create laws more than conservative ones do and give more power to the feds when I think the power should stay at the states.

I think that is it for now. Bedtime for Bonzo.

DSL said...

Face it, Kerry made a stupid, elitist comment. But he did apologize for his dumb remark and accepted responsibility.

dara said...

Justin: The Democrats always manage to screw up things like this. The response was too little, too late -- and just in time for the election. The Republicans are lightyears ahead of us in damage control.

Bo: I keep going back to Jon Stewart on this. The voices of the reasonable middle-of-the-road majority are drowned out by the radical fringes on either end. It's a sad reality.

And talk of compromise has no place during an election cycle.

Debby: Agreed. But timing is everything . . .

If the spin is true, then Kerry boffed a cheap joke essentially trying to call Bush stupid. And once again, I find myself agreeing with Jon Stewart: Bush isn't stupid -- he thinks we are.

DSL said...

I'm not quite following you or you're not quite following me. I'm disagreeing with Justin who said that this wasn't Kerry's fault.

dara said...

Debby: I agree with you -- I think Justin's being overly generous to Kerry. Kerry said something dumb that he shouldn't have said. Regardless of apologies, or whatever, he f-ed up.

Still, my main concern is that the Democrats butchered their response, and allowed the Republicans to be all over this in a negative way, with the election just days away. It would be way better if the focus was still on Mark Foley, water boarding, and the Michael J. Fox thing.

Justin S. said...

I guess is a clearer way to state my position, is that yes, Kerry messed up, but it's was a ridiculously minor screw up that should have been news for, oh, about 5 seconds. Instead, the Democrats managed to keep it going for 3 days.

dara said...

One of the things that always confounds me about this type of so-called "scandal" is that the Democrats never seem to see it coming.

Something like this happens to a Republican, and the machinery is so well-tuned that it's over and done with before it really begins. The Democrats, on the other hand, keep operating under some kind of head-in-the-sand illusion.

When will they understand that they need to apologize & make amends first and THEN start pointing fingers at the other side for making such a mountain out of a molehill?

I said...

I know I'm coming late to the party, but I was traveling yesterday and didn't have a chance to comment, but I have a lot to say. First what Kerry said is essentially true. For the most part people who have options do not enlist in the armed services. Most people enlisting do it as they have no other way to pay for an education or have no job prospects were they live. There is a reason the military is lowering its standards all the time. (I'm not talking here about people that want a military career and get a commission as an officer after college). This is not a new problem; W avoided service in Vietnam because he had a rich and powerful dad. If the Democrats had any back-bone or conviction they would make that the issue. One thing you can say for this administration, no matter what they stay on massage, reality be dammed. So maybe Kerry should have known better, but mostly If he wanted to discuss the issue he should have not done it through a lame joke, he knew this would get national coverage either have the guts to speak-up, or just shut-up.
Bo, I agree that our tax dollars are not put to best use currently, but the U.S. has one of the lowest tax rates in the industrial world, and people on welfare aren’t exactly living it up. The problem is that if they have a minimum wage job that does not provide them with any health care or other benefits the government cuts them off from public assistance, and they might end worse off. I wouldn’t trust private charities to provide for the poor. In the long run if the gap between the have and the have not becomes much greater we will all suffer for it with increased crime and health care costs, which some one will have to pay for.

dara said...

Inbal: Yes, but Kerry didn't really mean what he said. Remember?

I agree with your point about having one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. But, however, we don't always put our money to the best use here. And if there were more government programs, there would, inevitably, be more bureaucracy. Some things need to be privatized to be efficient. Just not schools or health care.

Andy, I had to delete your comment because it made reference to my current place of employ, and my last name. I refer to work as "The Anonymous Law Firm" or "Wolfram & Hart," somewhat interchageably. And, as far as the interweb is concerned, I have no last name.

But let me state for the record: I am not, nor will I ever be, a Republican.