Posts tagged ‘Democratic Party (United States)’

November 19, 2010

Senator Obama Circa 2007

by Vince

Take an hour.

Illinois Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama visits Google’s Mountain View, CA, headquarters to deliver his innovation agenda, speak with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and take questions from Google employees. This event took place on November 14, 2007, as part of the Candidates@Google series.

Advertisements
November 7, 2010

The Party of NO

by Vince

“I’m going to ensure that Republicans come out of the gate and seize this moment, we’ve really been given a second chance at a first impression and I’m going to tell them that we have to rise to the challenge with principle and conviction and not with this attitude that you saw coming from the White House yesterday and from some other quarters on the establishment left in Washington which was that somehow the message of the election was that they want Democrats and Republicans to work better together, to get along — good heavens,” – Mike Pence.

“The pre-election NYT poll found that 78 percent want the Republicans to compromise with Obama rather than stick to their positions in the next two years; 76 percent want the Dems to do the same; and a slightly lower percentage, but still overwhelming, wants Obama to compromise too: 69 percent.”

For the sake of the common good, I believe it is important for our politicians to work together. Unfortunately, the religious and non-religious right, both of which I have talked to regarding this, see the possibility of compromising as watering down their agendas, a sign of weakness, and giving in to the “enemy”. If that is the mindset, we will continue to be gridlocked and tap dance around issues with high voltage quotes as seen above.

H/T: TDD

September 25, 2010

The GOP’s “Pledge to America”

by Vince

The Grand Old Party is anticipating itself controlling the House of Representatives after the midterm elections. In that case, they have a list of demands. I wish I could download it. It sent me through some scam Facebook application. If someone can get a direct link to download this .pdf, shoot me a copy via email.

There are no details of who wrote this document. It is rather short (21 pages), but that is the practicalness of the GOP; they hated that the Dems had 1,000+ page documents that they and their three lawyers still couldn’t fully read or “understand”.

After reading it, I believe that it has the same tone as the rest of the Tea Party / fringe conservatives. I will fas forward to the National Security page (pg 19 and on). Lets begin with noting their tone:

And we will never apologize for advancing the cause of freedom and democracy around the world, nor will we abandon our historic role in lifting up those who struggle to receive the blessings of liberty.

American Exceptionalism at any cost, no matter what. The Dems have their larger government and the GOP has their larger military. The latter seems to forget that.

Here are their promises:

Pass Clean Troop Funding Bills: When asked to provide our troops with the resources they need, we will do so without delay. That means no more troop funding bills held up by unrelated policy changes, or extraneous domestic spending and pork-barrel projects.

Is that really really possible? To me, it sounds of the chant, “Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.” The military gets anything they want, even if there is question of whether we can execute and “win” a war, find WMDs, or repeating the quagmire in Vietnam.

Demand an Overarching Detention Policy: Foreign terrorists do not have the same rights as American citizens, nor do they have more rights than U.S. military personnel.We will work to ensure foreign terrorists, such as the 9/11 conspirators, are tried in military, not civilian, court.We will oppose all efforts
to force our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend “Miranda Rights” to foreign terrorists.

Rich right wing hubris is dripping from the above paragraph. Lets try them in military courts that have convicted far far far fewer terrorists than civilian courts. Where is the love that Jesus talked about in this document?

The next were proposed for Congress:

We will fight to ensure transparency and accountability in Congress and throughout government.

You didn’t do this with the torturing of enemy combattents in Gitmo, nor were you transparent with the growth of the security state.

We will continue to fight the growth of government and oppose new stimulus spending that only puts our nation further into debt.

Under George W. Bush, your party began the stimulus bail out that you so loath.

We will fight efforts to fund the costly new health care law.

Between 1995 and 2007, the GOP had control of two houses. Where was your plan then?

We will fight efforts to use a national crisis for political gain.

Iraq war, oil, and the Bush family?

Now for more of their proposed spending cuts.

With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt. We will also establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending from this point forward. We will launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth in government that has occurred over the past decade.By cutting Congress’ budget, imposing a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees, and reviewing every current government program to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs, we can curb Washington’s irresponsible spending habits and reduce the size of government, while still fulfilling our necessary obligations.

As Andrew Sullivan notes, “without tackling entitlements, none of this matters a jot.” Here are some final reactions that sum up my thoughts and others on this document:

Sullivan:

Given the gravity of the debt crisis, this is the most fiscally irresponsible document ever offered by the GOP. It is to the far right of Reagan, who raised taxes and eventually cut defense, and helped reform social security to ensure its longterm viability. It is an act of vandalism against the fiscal balance of the US, and in this global economic climate, a recipe for a double-dip recession and default. It is the opposite of responsible conservatism.

Nick Gillespie:

1. For much of, oh, the past decade, the GOP has been staggeringly incompetent in defining themselves as the party of small government. Their standard-bearer, George W. Bush, managed to jack up total federal outlays 104 percent over his predecessor in eight short years, and he either signed off on or strong-armed all sorts of big-government projects through both Republican and Democratic majorities (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Drugs, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, endless war supplemental spending bills, TARP, auto bailouts, etc.).

Outside the Beltway:

Adhering to the Constitution: This is another one that’s popular among the Tea Party crowd, but which is also pretty much meaningless. A rule requiring Congress to cite the Constitutional authority for an specific bill isn’t going to stop Congress from acting. For most legislation, all they’ll have to do it cite to the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or theNecessary and Proper Clause and their job is done. Thanks to a century or more of  Supreme Court jurisprudence, there is very little that the Congress wants to do that it can’t do under the Constitution as that document is currently interpreted.

Erik Erickson:

Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high. It is dreck — dreck with some stuff I like, but like Brussels sprouts in butter… Overall, this grand illusion of an agenda that will never happen is best spoken of today and then never again as if it did not happen. It is best forgotten.

Jonathan Bernstein:

[W]hat really struck me as I went through it the first time was the foreign policy section, which is…how should I say this…amateurish and pathetic.  What’s the current Republican foreign policy?  Stripping out the immigration stuff from that section of the document, what remains is (1) Gitmo; (2) Missile defense; and (3) threatening Iran.  That’s it.  Iraq and Afghanistan are referred to once, in passing.  There’s nothing at all about what the United States should do in those nations.  Nothing about Pakistan.  Nothing about Russia, or China (China at least gets one mention, in the context of the deficit).  Nothing about Europe. The rest of the world?  Obviously not.

Kevin Sullivan:

[W]ith all of the huffing and puffing we have heard – and indeed continue to hear – from conservatives about Obama’s “appeasement” of Iran, are these same critics thus satisfied by a short and simple pledge to enforce “tough sanctions against Iran”? I believe this demonstrates just how easy it is to be one of the two main political party on the outs in the United States. Ideological rigidity, or, in the specific case of Iran, radical statements about preparing for a regime change, make for good soundbites and exchanges on the Sunday morning shows, but they don’t resemble, as far as I can tell, the actual Republican plan for governance regarding the Islamic Republic – and that’s a good thing. All this could change, of course, in 2012 …

Adam Serwer:

There’s one bright spot in the GOP’s “pledge.” No where are their any promises, euphemistic or otherwise, to ensure that torturous “enhanced interrogation techniques” are used again. Although having attacked Obama for months over ending torture, it begs the question of why, if torture is so important to national security, Republicans haven’t put it in their policy platform. It’s almost as if they were willing to lionize torture just to make the administration look bad.

Steven Taylor:

To be honest, this document is designed to make GOP base voters happy, which is fine as far as that goes.  It is, after all, a campaign pamphlet (granted, a long one).  It is not, however, a real blueprint for policy.  Instead it amounts to pledges for themes popular with the base:   tax cuts, vague spending cuts, repeal of health care reform, and symbolic (not to mention bogus) promises to read bills and ensure their constitutionality.

Plus more here and here, first on health care and second on fiscal responsibility.

September 9, 2010

Debating by Jan Brewer

by Vince

The governor of Arizona made some sweeping statements a while back about various crimes committed in Arizona. These crimes were either directly or indirectly linked to illegal immigration. One of her comments was that illegal immigrants were beheading Arizona citizens and leaving them out for the birds in the desert. As you see in her beheading interview, she doesn’t see illegal immigration as a human issue but as a prejudicial (and straw group) issue. Why then does she see her opening debate mess up as only “human“?

When you are on such a stage as governor of Arizona, it could be difficult to admit on national TV that you are wrong. I can see that her continuing to refuse elaboration on her beheading comment doing her more harm than good.

You may think: why does Jan Brewer mean anything to me if I don’t live in Arizona? I see her now as part of the female triangle with Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle. Partly it is the medias nosiness that has made Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, and now Jan Brewer look like buffoons. Another large part can be contributed to hypocritical statements towards Barack Obama and the Democratic platform, vitriolic comments and unloving attitudes, Christianist viewpoints that are offensive, and now immature and emotionally unhealthy antics. They continue to provide fodder for anyone thinking of Sarah Palin in 2012 or considering one of her ilks books at Barnes and Nobles.