Thursday, January 21, 2010
Call Your Reps.
The time is now. Last chance - only chance. Call your representatives and tell them you want them to vote for the Senate's bill. Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's what we've got. Convince them that it's what their constituents want - they already know it's what's best for America and the only logical possibility for Democrats to hold onto any political power in the next decade. Please, call them, e-mail them, beg them.
Crying Uncle
The Coakley loss is upsetting, but far worse is the Democrats' collective reaction to it. Apparently we've decided that the proper reaction to a campaign of nothing but obstructionism by the Republicans is to cave to it and let them have their way. Not passing health care reform is going to be a disaster for the country and for the Democratic Party, but that appears to be the plan, from what I can tell. The idea of passing it incrementally is ridiculously unrealistic.
What really bothers me about this is the incentive structure American voters and Democrats have created for minority parties into the future. The moral of this story is "just do everything you can to stall the legislature into a stalemate, and you will be rewarded." Looks just great for our future.
What really bothers me about this is the incentive structure American voters and Democrats have created for minority parties into the future. The moral of this story is "just do everything you can to stall the legislature into a stalemate, and you will be rewarded." Looks just great for our future.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Health Care Passes the House!
Which is a good thing, it really is. The Stupak Amendment, however, is making it difficult for me to cheer. As near as I can tell, this amendment will make it basically impossible for non-affluent women to have elective abortions. Then again, I don't know exactly what the case is now - i.e. to what extent poorer women have any access. I know there are regions of the country where there is basically no access to abortions. I find it upsetting that the Democrats chose to make this pass by selling out women. I find it upsetting that the House has voted to take away the right, not only of women to choose, but of insurance companies to provide that right. This should be about adding coverage and improving accessibility to health care, not taking it away. Maybe it will get stripped out. Here's hoping.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Convince me
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
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
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?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Equality
I've been feeling especially feminist the last couple days. It started with this commentary on CNN, where the writer talks about Nancy Pelosi as though she's some sort of kindergarten teacher, instead of the Speaker of the House. Honestly, can you imagine any journalist ever writing anything about a male authority figure wanting to give someone a time-out?
Then, I saw this from HuffPo about how there are eight states and DC where insurance companies are allowed to consider being a victim of domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition, and therefore refuse coverage. Wow, way to look out for those who can't help themselves. Way to make it yet harder for these victims of abuse to seek the help and treatment they need.
Finally, I saw the story about how female congresspeople are more effective than male ones. Of course, we still only make up a ridiculous minority of the Senate and the House. At least here's an argument that may help us increase that percentage.
It's not that we haven't come a long way. Of course we have. And of course I am grateful that we have - grateful for my opportunities to go to a great law school and have a great job. But we still have one hell of a long way to go.
Then, I saw this from HuffPo about how there are eight states and DC where insurance companies are allowed to consider being a victim of domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition, and therefore refuse coverage. Wow, way to look out for those who can't help themselves. Way to make it yet harder for these victims of abuse to seek the help and treatment they need.
Finally, I saw the story about how female congresspeople are more effective than male ones. Of course, we still only make up a ridiculous minority of the Senate and the House. At least here's an argument that may help us increase that percentage.
It's not that we haven't come a long way. Of course we have. And of course I am grateful that we have - grateful for my opportunities to go to a great law school and have a great job. But we still have one hell of a long way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
