I need convincing. With Deeds trailing massively in the polls and Deeds apparently coming out against the public option, I'm getting very tempted to vote for a write-in, like Brian Moran. I know this shouldn't come as a surprise - I remember being appalled at a speech Creigh gave in Charlottesville a few years ago where he talked about the need for Virginia Dems to run to the right in order to win, but I am really not sure I can bring myself to vote for a losing candidate who has run a terrible campaign and with whom I agree on next to nothing. Yeah, he's got a better transportation plan than McDonnell, but... Ugh.
UPDATE: He says he's not opposed, but he would consider taking VA out of the public option. Good grief. Who the hell is running his campaign? And what the hell is Deeds thinking? ARGH
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize!
Congratulations to President Obama on receiving the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! This is a great honor, and his remarks on the occasion show that he understands that.
People keep saying that it's incredibly premature and that he hasn't accomplished anything yet and that he doesn't deserve it. While I admit to being shocked at the news when a friend texted it to me this morning, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.
Obama came to the Presidency after Bush's administration had done severe damage to the reputation of our country in the world. There isn't any denying that had happened, there is only a debate as to how much people care what the rest of the world thinks of us. However, in a few short months, Obama has managed to turn much of our foreign policy around. Yes, Afghanistan is still a mess, and yes, we haven't finished pulling out of Iraq yet.
However, we have presented an entirely new face to the world in terms of diplomatic engagement. Obama has made it clear that he is willing to pursue diplomatic means to achieve international cooperation and nuclear disarmament, and he has taken many affirmative steps towards that end - not least of which is engaging Iran and getting the UN to agree to pursue worldwide nuclear disarmament. So yes, there is much work to be done, but completely turning around the foreign policy of the world's most powerful nation, from hawkish to cooperative, in the first few months of his presidency - yeah, I think that's a pretty big accomplishment.
People keep saying that it's incredibly premature and that he hasn't accomplished anything yet and that he doesn't deserve it. While I admit to being shocked at the news when a friend texted it to me this morning, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.
Obama came to the Presidency after Bush's administration had done severe damage to the reputation of our country in the world. There isn't any denying that had happened, there is only a debate as to how much people care what the rest of the world thinks of us. However, in a few short months, Obama has managed to turn much of our foreign policy around. Yes, Afghanistan is still a mess, and yes, we haven't finished pulling out of Iraq yet.
However, we have presented an entirely new face to the world in terms of diplomatic engagement. Obama has made it clear that he is willing to pursue diplomatic means to achieve international cooperation and nuclear disarmament, and he has taken many affirmative steps towards that end - not least of which is engaging Iran and getting the UN to agree to pursue worldwide nuclear disarmament. So yes, there is much work to be done, but completely turning around the foreign policy of the world's most powerful nation, from hawkish to cooperative, in the first few months of his presidency - yeah, I think that's a pretty big accomplishment.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Party Wisdom
Two things regarding my current approach to party politics have been going through my mind lately. The first is whether I should continue to vote for non-progressive Democrats, particularly in federal elections. The second is a stranger thought to me - whether to encourage those Republicans who speak out against the far-right and untruthful tactics that the current Republican leadership has pursued of late.
I know that, living in Virginia especially, I am not always going to end up with Democrats that are not far too centrist for my taste running in the general elections. This has happened this year with Creigh Deeds and last year with Mark Warner. However, I have generally been of the opinion that you vote for the better of the two real candidates, or you're just throwing your vote away. The debate over health care reform has started to change the way I see this, however. After all, what is the point of voting for someone who still will not do the things you wish he or she would do? What is the point of having a majority, even a filibuster-proof one, if you still cannot get something like a public option, which has widespread public support and a majority of both Representatives and Senators willing to vote for it, passed into law?
I recognize that there are no viable third parties, and that most third-party candidates seem to be somewhat nutty, at best. However, how can I, in good conscience, vote for people who are so beholden to corporate special interests that they are unwilling to do what is clearly in the best interest of the country? The only arguments I've seen against voting for a public option are that it does not have the votes to pass or that it would drive private insurers out of business. The first is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the second has both the difficulty of not necessarily being a bad thing and having been disputed by every reputable study that's been done. If the majorities the Democrats currently possess in Congress combined with possession of the White House aren't enough to get this done, then I think it might be time to accept that even the Democratic Party is not willing or able to accomplish progressive goals. I think it might be time to give my vote to alternative candidates, or simply not to vote at all. I'm really not sure what other solution there is. And I don't think I can vote for candidates that are more worried about the good of their political futures in the hands of special interests than they are about the good of the American people they serve.
Another major problem we've all become increasingly aware of is the scorched earth tactics to which the Republican leadership has stooped. Birtherism has reared its ugly head among many members of Congress, and we constantly hear the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin ranting about death panels and other similar nonsense. Meanwhile, the powers that be back up this nonsense rather than calling it out and trying to encourage a return to civil and honest debate - which is necessary in order for our government to perform properly.
However, occasionally Republicans do step up and call for an end to the nonsense, like Rubio, who is running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Florida, or Senator Lindsey Graham, on occasion. In cases like Rubio's, where he is the longshot against Crist for the nomination, it occurs to me to support him, even financially, because of how much better it would be for the country if the debate were between people unwilling to stoop to lies, innuendo and name-calling for political gain. Surely, though, that would be going too far?
I know that, living in Virginia especially, I am not always going to end up with Democrats that are not far too centrist for my taste running in the general elections. This has happened this year with Creigh Deeds and last year with Mark Warner. However, I have generally been of the opinion that you vote for the better of the two real candidates, or you're just throwing your vote away. The debate over health care reform has started to change the way I see this, however. After all, what is the point of voting for someone who still will not do the things you wish he or she would do? What is the point of having a majority, even a filibuster-proof one, if you still cannot get something like a public option, which has widespread public support and a majority of both Representatives and Senators willing to vote for it, passed into law?
I recognize that there are no viable third parties, and that most third-party candidates seem to be somewhat nutty, at best. However, how can I, in good conscience, vote for people who are so beholden to corporate special interests that they are unwilling to do what is clearly in the best interest of the country? The only arguments I've seen against voting for a public option are that it does not have the votes to pass or that it would drive private insurers out of business. The first is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the second has both the difficulty of not necessarily being a bad thing and having been disputed by every reputable study that's been done. If the majorities the Democrats currently possess in Congress combined with possession of the White House aren't enough to get this done, then I think it might be time to accept that even the Democratic Party is not willing or able to accomplish progressive goals. I think it might be time to give my vote to alternative candidates, or simply not to vote at all. I'm really not sure what other solution there is. And I don't think I can vote for candidates that are more worried about the good of their political futures in the hands of special interests than they are about the good of the American people they serve.
Another major problem we've all become increasingly aware of is the scorched earth tactics to which the Republican leadership has stooped. Birtherism has reared its ugly head among many members of Congress, and we constantly hear the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin ranting about death panels and other similar nonsense. Meanwhile, the powers that be back up this nonsense rather than calling it out and trying to encourage a return to civil and honest debate - which is necessary in order for our government to perform properly.
However, occasionally Republicans do step up and call for an end to the nonsense, like Rubio, who is running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Florida, or Senator Lindsey Graham, on occasion. In cases like Rubio's, where he is the longshot against Crist for the nomination, it occurs to me to support him, even financially, because of how much better it would be for the country if the debate were between people unwilling to stoop to lies, innuendo and name-calling for political gain. Surely, though, that would be going too far?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
