Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Thought for the day:
With all this crazy talk about "death panels," can we turn it to our advantage? Can we promise to drop the (already nonexistent) death panels in exchange for something?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Creigh Deeds
So it looks like McDonnell's lead just keeps growing, and according to a new poll, it looks like it's got a lot to do with a lack of interest in supporting Deeds from the Democrats.
Somehow, this doesn't really surprise me. I'm a pretty avid Dem, and I REALLY want McDonnell not to be the next governor - I think it could actually be pretty disastrous, unless we can magically get back control of the House of Delegates (not bloody likely). However, I can't get excited about Deeds. Most of what I can do to try to convince people is tell them what an extremist candidate McDonnell really is - I don't have a lot of pro-Deeds stuff to say, although I'm sure he'd be a fine candidate. And while negative campaigning works, you really need to have more positive stuff about your own candidate to go along with it...
This is the problem with McAuliffe and Moran having split up all the votes and having left us with Deeds. Deeds isn't a liberal. At all. He's probably to the right of center. He'll be a competent governor, and would actually probably be particularly effective because he's so centrist, but it does make it difficult for the partisan Democrats, i.e. the ones who usually get out and vote in non-national elections and especially the ones who donate and volunteer, to get motivated to get involved and get behind the candidate.
Well, here's hoping we can find some enthusiasm somehow, because I'm not kidding around about McDonnell. Gilmore and Allen nearly destroyed the state - and McDonnell's at least of their mold, if not worse.
Somehow, this doesn't really surprise me. I'm a pretty avid Dem, and I REALLY want McDonnell not to be the next governor - I think it could actually be pretty disastrous, unless we can magically get back control of the House of Delegates (not bloody likely). However, I can't get excited about Deeds. Most of what I can do to try to convince people is tell them what an extremist candidate McDonnell really is - I don't have a lot of pro-Deeds stuff to say, although I'm sure he'd be a fine candidate. And while negative campaigning works, you really need to have more positive stuff about your own candidate to go along with it...
This is the problem with McAuliffe and Moran having split up all the votes and having left us with Deeds. Deeds isn't a liberal. At all. He's probably to the right of center. He'll be a competent governor, and would actually probably be particularly effective because he's so centrist, but it does make it difficult for the partisan Democrats, i.e. the ones who usually get out and vote in non-national elections and especially the ones who donate and volunteer, to get motivated to get involved and get behind the candidate.
Well, here's hoping we can find some enthusiasm somehow, because I'm not kidding around about McDonnell. Gilmore and Allen nearly destroyed the state - and McDonnell's at least of their mold, if not worse.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Bar Exam = Over
Well, at least this time - here's hoping I never have to go through that again! Anyway, now I can get around to finding out about what's happened in the rest of the world the last couple of weeks - looks like we might have some sort of compromise on health care, Obama's approval ratings may or may not be plummeting and somehow McDonnell the crazy right wing extremist has taken a commanding lead over moderate-to-right wing Deeds for my fair Commonwealth's governorship. We're gonna have to get to work on these things!
Just in case anyone was wondering, McDonnell is anything but the moderate he's recently been claiming to be. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and health of the pregnant woman (and repeatedly tried to find ways to limit this right in the state legislature), he backed Gilmore's tax cuts that nearly bankrupted the state, and he has opposed orders by Kaine and Warner forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as well as attempted to prevent the appointment of a judge because she was gay. I'll write more about all this soon, but it's important that people know that whatever moderate stances he may be pretending to adopt now, McDonnell is anything but. We've gotta get Deeds in office.
Just in case anyone was wondering, McDonnell is anything but the moderate he's recently been claiming to be. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and health of the pregnant woman (and repeatedly tried to find ways to limit this right in the state legislature), he backed Gilmore's tax cuts that nearly bankrupted the state, and he has opposed orders by Kaine and Warner forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as well as attempted to prevent the appointment of a judge because she was gay. I'll write more about all this soon, but it's important that people know that whatever moderate stances he may be pretending to adopt now, McDonnell is anything but. We've gotta get Deeds in office.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Neocons and Hating Everyone
While there are times (becoming ever more frequent as the bar exam approaches) when I, too, feel like I hate everyone, I don't think I've ever felt that quite as frequently as the neocons, and especially Charles Krauthammer appear to. He had a column in the Washington Post today complaining about Obama, as he is wont to do, because Obama is *gasp* trying to create better relations with Russia.
As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.
I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.
It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.
As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.
I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.
It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
And then there were three...
According to a post at The Mudflats, only three of the 1200 governors elected to a first term since 1900 have quit - McGreevy, Spitzer and Palin. McGreevy is the New Jersey governor who quit while coming out of the closet and admitting to an affair with the man he'd appointed his Homeland Security advisor, and of course Spitzer was having *ahem* affairs. This data makes Palin's random resignation appear all the more bizarre, but that's not what it got me thinking about.
For a century, nobody just quit as governor during his or her first term. Why is it suddenly becoming, if not commonplace, in the realm of possibility? Is it just because there's so much less privacy possible for public figures now, so everything ends up out in the open? Is it part of some greater, creeping moral turpitude that induces people not to live up to their commitments? Just seems so strange to have 3 in 5 years after having none for a century.
For a century, nobody just quit as governor during his or her first term. Why is it suddenly becoming, if not commonplace, in the realm of possibility? Is it just because there's so much less privacy possible for public figures now, so everything ends up out in the open? Is it part of some greater, creeping moral turpitude that induces people not to live up to their commitments? Just seems so strange to have 3 in 5 years after having none for a century.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Senator Franken
It's official! He's in. I think he'll be a good senator - I love his attitude. He's all about working hard, which is just what we need in our Senators. I'm quite pleased. Plus, 60 votes - except that Lieberman's basically not a vote for anything, but still, theoretically.
Meanwhile, the Pubs, are, of course, doing weirdo twisting uneducated gymnastics over on the other side of the aisle: "The Democrats have total control. No checks. No balances... In 2010, you can hold them accountable." That's from a new ad. Well, first of all, I'm pretty ok with the electorate holding the Dems accountable in 2010, because I think so far we're doing a pretty good job, I just hope the economy continues to look like it's recovering and the jobs start coming back. But, second of all - no checks, no balances? Not only is it absurd to just assume that everything is going to come down to a straight party-line vote, but aren't they forgetting someone? Paging Justice Roberts... The Founding Fathers didn't put the judiciary into the Constitution for show.
Meanwhile, the Pubs, are, of course, doing weirdo twisting uneducated gymnastics over on the other side of the aisle: "The Democrats have total control. No checks. No balances... In 2010, you can hold them accountable." That's from a new ad. Well, first of all, I'm pretty ok with the electorate holding the Dems accountable in 2010, because I think so far we're doing a pretty good job, I just hope the economy continues to look like it's recovering and the jobs start coming back. But, second of all - no checks, no balances? Not only is it absurd to just assume that everything is going to come down to a straight party-line vote, but aren't they forgetting someone? Paging Justice Roberts... The Founding Fathers didn't put the judiciary into the Constitution for show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
