"They say we're disturbing the peace. But what really disturbs them is that we're disturbing the war." -Howard Zinn
So now President-elect Obama is going to have far right 'celebrity preacher' Rich Warren speak at his inauguration. This is a guy who said the main difference between him and James Dobson was tone, that Warren was nicer in pedalling his bigotry.
More annoying is how the punditocracy shamelessly praises Obama every time he gives the finger to the people who enthusiastically supported him. Every time Obama names a non-progressive to his team (pretty much every time so far), the yapping heads rave about it, saying "liberals can't have everything their own way" or "he's governing as a centrist."
I understand Obama's desire to have a balanced team and to be as inclusive as possible. It's certainly a change from the Bush strategy of giving the finger to the 49-53% of the country who didn't vote for him.
Balance is useful but where's the balance? He has conservative Democrats, corporatists, anti-abortionists, homophobes and theocrats. But where are the progressives? I understand they can't get every position, but a few? What kind of balance is it if you include everyone except your most ardent supporters?
Who knows, maybe he'll find a job in his administration for James Dobson.
I can't say I'm disappointed in him because I didn't expect much in the first place, other than him not being anti-science, anti-intellectual and hate mongering. And that's certainly an improvement but I know a lot of well-intentioned people who had high hopes for him. And I'm sure most of them will continue to give him a free pass for the next 4-8 years just because he'll be less nightmarish than the medieval regime he's replacing. But I wonder if Rick Warren is what they had in mind.
8 comments:
Oh good Lord, he hasn't even taken the OATH OF OFFICE yet & already you're complaining about what a horrible job he's going to do. You're no better than Fox News in that specific respect.
At least give the guy a month after taking the Oath & allow him to f*** it up on his own before you start complaining. Sheesh!
I'm willing to let him f- it up on his own. But though he's not taken the oath of office, he's still making decisions. He making decisions about who's going to be on his team he wants to impose on America (remember, we vote for two people, not an administration; something which I've long said is a failing of our system).
And I'm sorry but the current administration demonstrates the importance of whom you surround yourself with. Right now, I don't see balance.
And what happened to the concept of being an engaged citizen to try to prevent leaders from f-ing up in the first place? We've gotten ourselves into enough messes that appear to be irreversible or intractable. I'd really rather avoid more.
I haven't nitpicked on every choice Obama's made. I waited until I saw a clear, consistent picture emerge. To put things in context, I've published 22 entries in this blog in the six weeks since Election Day. This is the FIRST thing I've posted criticizing anyone Obama's picked. "Fox-esque"? Give me a break.
I do believe you have bitched about him on a number of occassions, though in private. When the IL governor's scandal came out, your reaction was (& I quote), "this is sort of why ive never bought the pure as white snow image of obama, because he came out of chicago politics" only to have you email a Washington Post article illustrating the length of how much he sidestepped said politics because he knew exactly how poisionous it was. Funny, how one's knee-jerk initial reaction proved wrong.
You also complained about his choice of Hilary Clinton as SecState, retaining Gates as SecDef, both of which are hawks. Not to mention, Vilsack as SecAg yet excluded Edwards & Kucinich because to use your words "they dared to use the dreaded p-word." The latter pick neglects the fact that both are politically toxic. K because his own constituents nearly voted him out of office because they felt he was spending to much time constantly on national issues & not enough time on issues pertaining to the district. Not to mention, doesn't OH have a Republican govenror. If K leaves, the gov will probably appoint a Republican to fill his seat. Edwards because I think he has confirmation issues, namely the revelation of his long running affair. That politically doesn't mesh well w/ Obama's "open & honest" government theme.
Secondly, has Obama even made any claims that he's TRYING to be balanced? Its a political job. Of course, that element is going to come into play. Not to mention, he's going to appoint people that shares the values that he has as well as surrond himself w/ the best people to help get thing sheparded through Congress.
I used the Fox News analogy because not more than 24 hours as being President-Elect, they were drumming up all this baseless fear of what he is going to do in office & why America should be afraid. As it is now, he has no official power yet. The new Congress that reflects the updated sentiment of the electorate hasn't even been seated yet. I still stand w/ how I used it. At least let him &/or his Cabinet members the oppurtunity to propose policy initiatives (or the Oath of Office, whichever comes first) before you start tripping out. Or if you wanted to attack his choice of Cabinet member qualifications, I think that's totally fair game. But in lieu of that, at least let him or his people either take the oath of office or propose policy iniatives before you start complaining.
Just because his predessor is lousy & had no moral compass, doesn't mean the new guy is the same way.
I try to keep email and blogging separate for practical reasons. If you're offended by something I said in email, then feel free to respond to me there.
I do not particularly care that he excluded Edwards and Kucinich. I have separate issues with each of them. I think Edwards is fake. I think Kucinich* is genuine but he's a little too strident to persuade the undecided. I have nothing against Vilsack, who I know little about.
(*-On an unrelated note, OH has a Democratic governor. And the Dems have a big majority in the House anyway. So that's a non-issue politically.)
What bothers me, and what I mentioned in both entries, is that I am not aware of a single progressive he's named to his team.
Obama is candidate who was elected precisely because of the massive enthusiasm he generated among progressives. He doesn't win without massive turnout among progressives; after all, McCain got almost 20 pct more votes than Gore did in 2000. Obama won because of turnout, because of progressive turnout.
I maintain that it's a fair to ask where are the progressives in his now nearly completed team.
Obama has made great hay about his stated desire to appoint a team that represents all Americans, not just those who voted for him.
By this stated goal from his own lips, progressives should not be excluded, nor should those who take into account the well-being of the poor.
I'm not going to nitpick on individual team members because while there's no one that really impresses me (except Susan Rice at UN), there's also no one that truly repels me (though Hillary comes close). I'm commenting on the broader trend I see in his choices and what that suggests about him.
You probably won't believe this but I think Obama has the potential to be the best president since FDR. He also has the potential to be a Clintonian Greek tragedy. Guess which one I'm pulling for. But FDR didn't make it happen by himself. He was surrounded by the right people.
Listen, Obama's having press conferences just about every bloody day. He's really getting far more press than Bush (thank heaven for small miracles).
The punditocracy is swooning over his choices. I don't hear you complaining about that. I don't hear you complaining that they should wait until he takes office to praise his decisions. That's fair but countering points of view are not?
If you want a total blackout on discussion of anything Obama until Jan. 20, I'm game. But good luck convincing the rest of the media.
I wasn't offended in the least. You made a public statement that I know very well was contrary to what was said, only this time, it was in a written in private form. I just used said written statement to impeachment the public one. The written didn't warrant further discussion because you hadn't made a contrary statement yet.
I'm not complaining about the swooning because I'm fully aware that he & the press are having their honeymoon that almost EVERY President receives. Well, every President but Clinton but that's because he went out of his way to sour the relationship by banishing the WH Press Corps to the Old Executive Office Building. Think of the current swooning of being w/ a new GF. You're super excited to spend every waking moment of your time w/ them, when in hindsight, you're like, "Wow, I sure lost any sense of reality on that one."
I'm also not that worried about K & Edwards not being in the Cabinet both for the aforementioned reasons but also, we don't know if they've actually been asked. Edwards & his wife are having to deal w/ her cancer that has reflaired up. For all we know, it may not be the right time for him. Where it might have been worth it because he'd was running for the top job, it may not seem like now that he wasn't likely to win.
But regardless about the political theories, I think a lot of his picks reveal progressive possibilites. In particularly selecting Daschle for HHS, that's one of those posts that doesn't receive a lot of attention. But even beyond that he apparently wrote a book early this year analyzing the pitfuls of past national health coverage attempt & well as the economic factors involved.
Solis for Labor supposedly has one of the more liberal voting records in the House. Vilsack favored tighter farm subsidy rules, & was a promoter of new-generation biofuels & was responsible for pushing more high-tech agribusiness as governor. Donovan of Housing & Urban development has spent his career promoting on affordable housing issues. Chu for Energy, I'm told by a lot of people is a really smart choice, not to mention won a Nobel Prize for physics in 1997. He ran the Berkley lab & has been a leader in alternative & renewable energy.
I'd also have to disagree w/ your statement that it was the progressives turnout that got him elected. He won because he had massive crossover appeal. He won because his side had motivation to get to the polls. He won because he was better able to illustrate his views on what he would do different, both from the current occupant as well as from his opponent. But more importantly, he won because people were seriously pissed off & weren't liking the direction the way the country was going. He successfully ran a campaign on change, while the other guy ran a campaign on more of the same.
Garnering the progressive vote hardly a deciding factor. He was always going to get their vote no matter what, its not like them voting for someone else would have caused him to come even close to losing the election. Even if they did vote for someone else, who would it have been? Nader was the next most progressive canidate but his vote garnering ability has decreased by half w/ each subsequent election since 2000. Nader was always a cause based candiate, who basically ran because he had something to promote. What that cause was I never really got the sense that even he knew. At this point, it was like he was running because he didn't have anything else to do...sorta like Pat Buchannan from 1992-2000. He to had serious issues that he wanted brought to light when he first ran but people stopped listening w/ each subsequent election.
All right, since you're hell bent on publicizing private conversations, I'm going to answer them.
Yes, I have "bitched" privately once in a while is because I've disagreed with several of his choices. I've only "bitched" publicly once (the last two entries are basically the same complaint) because only once have I gotten annoyed to the point where I felt I wanted my complaints on the record. I'm not saying he's going to be a horrible president. I'm not saying terrorists are going attack on Jan. 21. I'm simply saying I'm not impressed by his choices. This is hardly the "Fox News" like obsession you portray it. Like you never blow off steam? Get a grip!
The "pure as white snow" comment was a jab not at Obama (who has every interest in marketing himself as such) but at his supporters who buy into it. I got tired of listening to people act like he was the Second Coming, the Obamessiah if you will, but then when you ask about his stance on x, y or z issue, hearing people blow it off as though issues don't matter (while mocking the right as an issue-free zone).
Frankly, I don't think you can become president in our system if you "pure as the white snow." I think our system is so broken that someone like Obama is the best we can get.
I don't like Clinton. I don't remember complaining about Gates. Frankly, I understand why Obama's keeping him on. I didn't complain about Vilsack. I just wanted to make a point and Vilsack happened to be the most recent pick at the time.
And as I said several times,, my gripe is not that a particular person (Kucinich or Edwards) hasn't chosen. My gripe is that a kind of person hasn't been chosen.
Perhaps Daschle has "progressive possibilities." I'm referring to people with an actual progressive record. He "wrote a book about it" might be sufficient in other cases but this guy used to be one of the two most powerful people on Capitol Hill. We'll see.
Like many people, you totally miss the boat with the "he was always going to get the progressive vote no matter what" comment.
Yes, had a less charismatic candidate ran, these progressives weren't going to vote for McCain and the majority of them probably weren't going to vote for a smaller party candidate. They wouldn't have voted at all.
Read this carefully:
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED AT ALL.
The reason Obama won is because he brought millions of BRAND NEW VOTERS, mostly young progressive minded voters, into the electoral process.
In fact, this is why Nader wasn't a spoiler in 2000 and why his vote total has diminished since. I believe I saw that 2/3 of those who voted for him (2m out of 3m) were first time voters. These aren't people that would've voted for Gore had he not been on the ballot. These are people that would've continued to NOT VOTE AT ALL had he not been on the ballot.
Yes, Obama had crossover appeal and that was important. But he won because he didn't try to nitpick here and there crumbs from the pie. He won by making the size of the whole pie bigger.
It's that inclusiveness that inspired so many people. It's why his base were far more motivated both to work for him, to turn out themselves at the polls and to make sure others turned out at the polls. Again, McCain got more votes than any political candidate in American history, save Bush '04 and Obama. Obama won (comfortably) because of turnout. He won by making the pie bigger.
If he doesn't bring in millions of brand new voters, progressive voters, WHO WOULD NEVER HAVE OTHERWISE VOTED without a candidate WHO SPECIFICALLY TARGETTED GETTING THEM INVOLVED (and donating money and time), he loses. The decisive factor was how he energized these new people into the process.
Friday, 19 December, 2008
If Obama lives up to his promises of spending hundreds of billions of *new* dollars on domestic programs, from health care and education to infrastructure, economic stimulus and alternative energy, on a scale unseen since FDR, that's progressive enough for me.
But yeah, this Rick Warren pick... what the hell? Why can't we get a regular, non-controversial preacher who stays away from politicsl bullsh-t. Guy's a lunatic, unworthy of a national stage, even if has a few liberal ideas of poverty or the environment. He really thinks he will win over evangelicals because of Warren? Please... Obama's trying too hard to be everything to everyone.
Mark,
What amazes me is that since Day One of his campaign, Obama and his people have gone out of their way to be as absolutely saccharine and vanilla and non-controversial as possible.
But the two times he did go against that, it was not a nod to the progressives that massively supported him and caused his election, it was to appease the militarists (Hillary) and the theocrats (Warren).
Post a Comment