Children Safe on Capitol Hill Once Again

In the wake of Foleygate, Pelosi’s repeated references to “the children” and the invitation of her own grandchildren and other kids to the speakers podium was just what the country needed. Sure, it’s a blatant political ploy and obviously polarizing–but undeniably and regrettably heartwarming.

Grandma Pelosi 1, decadent Foley 0.

 

A Muslim Committed to Serve His Nation

Thoughts from Keith Ellison, the newly elected Representative from Minnesota’s 5th District and the first Muslim member of Congress:

Recently, I have become the focus of some criticism for my use of the Qu’ran for my ceremonial swearing in. Let me be clear, I am going to be sworn into office like all members of Congress. I am going to swear to uphold the United States Constitution. We seem to have lost the political vision of our founding document — a vision of inclusion, tolerance and generosity.

He goes on:

I do not blame my critics for subscribing to a politics of scarcity and intolerance. However, I believe we all must project a new politics of generosity and inclusion This is the vision of the diverse coalition in my Congressional district. My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families. I was elected to articulate a new politics in which no one is cut out of the American dream, not immigrants, not gays, not poor people, not even a Muslim committed to serve his nation.

It’s a matter of choice that Rep. Ellison swore on the Qu’ran, but it’s a matter of principle that got him elected. Hopefully pundits will realize this as Rep. Ellison transforms from the “Muslim Congressman” to just a “Congressman”.

 

Hate the Players…and the Game

With the convening of the 110th Congress, Senator Barack Obama makes a strong political message:

This past Election Day, the American people sent a clear message to Washington: Clean up your act.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that this message was intended for only one party or politician. The votes hadn’t even been counted in November before we heard reports that corporations were already recruiting lobbyists with Democratic connections to carry their water in the next Congress.

That’s why it’s not enough to just change the players. We have to change the game.

What timing: with a newly elected Congress that has pledged to end corruption and special interests, Obama has taken the initiative to resonate the challenge to both parties.  Democrats are not impervious to such vices, and they should not fool each other or the public that they are.  By maintaining the tough standard that Obama and Speaker Pelosi are promoting, Congress might be on its way to cleaning up its act and restoring faith in our government.

A thought: I couldn’t help but think how appropriate the timing was on this editorial piece.  Obama, a staunch supporter of ethics reform in Congress, is leading the way for bipartisan reform with his piece in today’s Washington Post. Is he trying to get his name exposed, attached to the crusade against special interest and the corruption that America found so repugnant this past November?  Absolutely, and it’s a wise step towards a possible run towards the White House.

 

Clinton vs. Obama, Round 1

Two feature articles appeared today addressing the impending Clinton-Obama bout.

Here’s the New Republic’s take. And here’s thoughts from Eugene Robinson.

Both bring up an interesting point: is Barack Obama a political orgasm that simply won’t last, or is he the real deal? Many have pegged him to be so, but my faith is in Obama the sensible leader and competent politician, not the Time Magazine cover boy and supposed political newbie. He might have rock star status at the moment, but the next few months of primary campaigning will ultimately reveal his true political worth. But if he is the sure shot, then Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, and anyone else will have more than enough work ahead of them.

 

2008 Taking Shape…

Too many horses in this race: Bayh’s out.

 

America’s Election Hangover: Feeling Blue

What a week for the Democrats, exceeding expectations and taking both sides of Congress (pending an honorable concession from current incumbent George Allen). But then the dessert to an otherwise delectable meal: Donald Rumsfeld resigns after a, to put it mildly, “unpopular” stint as Secretary of Defense.

As much as the adage “all politics is local” remains true, this absoultely was an election predicated on national issues. Foleygate, “staying the course”, and K street corruption remained in the voter’s collective conscience as they marched to the polls. A monumental shift in power hasn’t happened for over a decade; an impetus is usually required to garner such drastic action. A failed war and perverse moral and financial corruption often does that.

The Governator can’t complain about this election. He says he loves sequels, and he got his.

Republicans all over the nation will have to get used to a few things over the next few years. Let’s start with “Madam” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first woman in such position, and her “San Francisco” liberalism leading the House of Representatives. Watch the collective “gulp” as thoughts of “universal health care”, “gay marriage”, and “rice-a-roni” speeds through their minds. And how about replacing “Rummy” with “Gates”? People can argue that Rumsfeld was released for his policy of “staying the course” in Iraq, whatever that might mean. Hopefully, Robert Gates can set out do establish what America really wants: tangible results in the preparation for a timetable of withdrawal.

We now have a Black Governor in Massachusetts and a Muslim Congressman from Minnesota. We saw a decisive victory for Hilary Clinton in New York (Clinton v Obama for ‘08?). Joe Lieberman proved that Congress couldn’t get enough of his flavor, even if it is now decidedly more “independent”. But best of all, talks of recounts and personal attacks were put aside. This was a decided Democratic opportunity.

I use this word intentionally because I don’t feel that this is a victory in any means if the party squanders its chance to promote its progressive agenda to help Americans. I’m sure that in our moments of “ass” kissing over these past few days we can forget that Dems are humans as well, just as susceptible to corruption and shallowness as their Republican counterparts. I’m sure I’ll bear the wrath of some passionate Berkeley liberals, but I’m simply trying to be the political pragmatist here.

But all of this news pales in comparison to recent news that Britney Spears filed for divorce from her obviously model husband/citizen/male specimen Kevin Federline amidst rumors of a “sex tape”. Amazing how this story can possibly take a piece of the nation’s attention at this time, but I can sort of see its appeal. Think pigs rolling around in the mud. With Bourbon. Lots of Bourbon.

 

Bipartisan Politics at UC Berkeley, CNBC Style

Cal Dems and Berkeley College Republicans on CNBC:

I can’t help but think that these organizations, while crucial to the political lifeline of our student body, are simply propagating the petty differences between party platforms that has been the bane of bipartisan cooperation in our own government. Both are so insistent on their own parties’ righteousness (it didn’t help that Larry Kudlow was spurring them on) that they simply will not even consider the flaws of their own agenda. There is a difference between being political and ideological; unfortunately, these two are busy bantering about their own party’s virtues to realize the difference.

In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama challenges America to stop political polarization and instead focus on the similarities between both parties. It’s hard to admit, even for a current Berkeley student like me, that we as Americans all share more values than we’d like to think. We all want a secure nation. We all want the best education, either for ourselves or our children. And we all want to be healthy and have access to the best health care.

All I ask is that we take a moment in our political scrutiny to consider the opposite side of every debate, not to brush it aside as the majority of ” U Cal Berkeley” tends to do. We must stop the inevitable gag reflex at the sound of key terms like conservatism, progressivism, or capitalism and consider why these ideological constructs exist within our national debate in the first place. When we can do this and begin to focus on pragmatic issues instead of the political foibles that we currently choose to define ourselves with, then change is truly possible.

 

Fears of Hypocricy

Before we all kiss each other’s asses over the impending Democratic recapture of possibly both sides of Congress, consider a warning from former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta:

My fear is that the Democrats after 12 years of trench warfare and a pretty rough time — these people are pretty battle-scarred from that — basically come out and seek vengeance for everything that’s taken place. If they do that, I think they make a pretty big mistake because the public will say, ‘These guys are no different than Tom DeLay and his crowd.’

We have the opportunity to right the wrongs of years of political mishaps; let’s not be taken in by tumultuous stubborness and lower ourselves to the standard set for years by GOP leaders. The agenda must be firmly set but coupled with a strong sense of cooperation, something that has unfortunately been cast aside in Capitol Hill for the past few years.

 

Political Strategies and a November Victory

Dave Ignatius has some great thoughts on the political dynamics of both major parties:

But there’s a larger, overarching battle this year between two visions of America: testing whether it’s a country defined by its political center or one defined by its political extremes.

“Clinton Politics is the politics of the center. It holds that Americans for the most part, with the exception of irate groups at the edges, are less interested in ideology than in practical solutions to basic problems. People would prefer politics to be polite, civil, and compromise-minded.”

“Bush Politics is the politics of the base,” the authors continue. “A successful leader will stand forthrightly on one side of a grand argument. Then he or she will win that argument by sharpening the differences and rallying his most intense supporters to his side.”

It would seem that at this point the former strategy seems to be working. With November 7th approaching and final polls coming in, it seems very possible that Democrats will take over the House. Critical campaigns are pushing forward in the Foleygate wake to desperately rally last-minute support.

Upon reading Ignatius’ piece, a question popped in my head: is a Democratic victory in November a triumph for Clinton’s synthesis strategy or a defeat for Rove’s alienation agenda?  It seems at the moment to be the latter.

 

O’Reilly vs. Democratic Brains=Unintelligible Gibber Gabber

Democratic Strategist Paul Begala and the Rajun’ Cajun came to Clinton’s rescue on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show. O’Reilly, in his infinite wisdom, decided it would be an excellent idea to maintain Fox News’ newly found objective view of politics. The result: five minutes of quacking by very insistent ducks. Cynicism and doubt coupled with stubbornness usually produces senseless noise. This is probably why the majority of Americans are disgusted with politics: stupid things said by smart people are still stupid.

I’m reminded at this time of a very wise adage: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it’s probably a mother fucking duck.

If I have not made this clear yet, allow me to repeat myself in very simple terms: Fox News is a CONSERVATIVE news station. To those Conservatives in denial, I’ll concede that CNN and the New York Times are liberal news sources. We have ours. You have yours.

 

Let’s Look into the Crystal Ball…

With all of this election talk and some pollsters projecting a Democrat takeover of the House, take a moment to consider what such an event would imply:

Democrats will press to get out of Iraq. They’ll mount investigations into the Bush administration’s record that could rival those of Presidents Nixon in Watergate and Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair. They’ll push a boatload of social-welfare legislation, such as raising the minimum wage, that reflects their pent-up priorities, while blocking the Republican agenda on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and religion.

I’m all for withdrawing troops from Iraq, but it must be done strategically and thoroughly. We cannot be led by our immediate emotional response to an unpopular conflict; for sake of our troops, we must establish the agenda Senate Democrats had discussed earlier this year. This doesn’t mean blindly “maintaining the course”, but rather setting the stage for withdrawal and the conditions for self-sufficiency on part of the newly-formed Iraqi government.

Before any stupid liberals start screaming impeachment, I have to warn against such impulsive reactions. Bush might be a bad President, but on what grounds would he be impeached? Lying to the country? Being a “mass murderer”? Get real, that’s simply not going to happen.

But this would be a great start to establish a progressive agenda that could counter years of regressive policies from Capitol Hill. Despite the fact that I’m yet to be impressed by the idea of a Pelosi-led House, I realize the potential benefit they could provide to average Americans. This would be a great momentous step in the right direction, but I must play the part of the pessimist for a moment. Consider University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato’s warning:

If the Republicans have one (chamber of Congress) and the Democrats have another, hardly anything is going to reach Bush. If Democrats take both, then Bush will probably set an all-time record for vetoes.

This is a big if, as campaigning to capture six seats in the Senate is a daunting task onto itself. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves: much is yet to be determined. Over the next two months, Democrats will have the opportunity to set the agenda they feel a concerned nation will consider. Let’s hope it’s not filled with irrational or emotional-appealing banter, but rather substantial progressive goals that can ultimately rebuild America from years of political infighting and government mistrust.

 

Governator vs. Mr. Nobody, Round 1

Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to dominate the California Gubernatorial race, forging bipartisan alliances and attacking the real issues that California residents are concerned with, including education and environmental issues. While his campaign continues to flourish, Phil Angelides swims in obscurity, pushed away from the collective memory of California both by a star-studded opponent and a tepid campaign of his own.

Angelides is struggling in even staunch democratic enclaves of the state. In the San Francisco Bay Area, he only leads by 10 points. In response, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown issued a great statement: “(Angelides) should stay in Dinuba, Chico, San Luis Obispo, wherever there are no known systems of technology and communications.”

Great news for Angelides: as long as nobody knows what’s going on, you have a sliver of hope. But I have bad news: I think I saw a few Blockbusters and Hollywood Video stores last time I was in SLO town. As long as they have a copy of “Kindergarden Cop”, what’s his name will have his work cut out for himself.

 

A Confederacy of Dunces

Jon Chait wrote a very good piece for The New Republic today, observing the seemingly futile state of the political status quo, which he describes as “zero sum politics”:

One of the odd things about the current political moment is that everybody thinks they’re losing. Liberals are bitter that the government has been run for years by incompetent reactionaries. And even those hopeful ones who anticipate winning control of Congress in November know in the back of their minds that the only thing they’ll gain is the ability to limit the damage George W. Bush could inflict on the country. Conservatives, meanwhile, are bitter that Bush’s presidency is going down in flames, and they blame the Republican Party for abandoning small-government principles.

Chait reiterates a past point I made about bipartisan cooperation. Both parties are tainted by misdirection and political leaders ignoring ideals in favor of temporary and short-sighted decisions. The Bush presidency is about as devoid of any “small government” qualities that Conservatives are enamored with than any other Republican Executive. Chait is absolutely correct to describe current Conservative politics as a “corrupt brand of right-wing corporatism” devoid of any of the philosophical principles that the GOP has been fortified on for decades. And while this detriment to the republican rock might be perceived as a liberal victory, we must pause for a moment and consider the liberal response. Liberals are fragmented and obscured by partisan infighting; as Chait concedes, “…even those hopeful ones who anticipate winning control of Congress in November know in the back of their minds that the only thing they’ll gain is the ability to limit the damage George W. Bush could inflict on the country.” So critical of the current administration, the left has forgotten their own agenda, losing their own voice in the national debate.

In sum, the political situation in the nation is dismal, and for good reason.

Political strife, like war, often produces little benefit, and what little benefit is accumulated is unfortunately negated by the strain of turmoil and acrimonious rhetoric that lingers through the national collective conscience. Both sides are losing because they have lost sight of what it is to win this supposed “contest”.

I’m no economist, but I’m sure there’s a theory that expresses this ideal. In any situation, it would seem that cooperation, or at least a cessation of conflict, coinciding with a rational consideration of various options would be more beneficial in the long run.

 

Update on Lieberman

Well, just as I suspected, Joe Cool lost the primary to Neddy Lamont. But perhaps it wasn’t as terrible a defeat as I had once suspected.

After conceding the election to Lamont, Lieberman held a press conference, in which he officially stated he would run as an independent. On the “Today” show, Lieberman explained that he is “going forward because I’m fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done.” He charged that if Lamont were elected, “he would be just one more partisan polarizer and get in the way of America and Connecticut doing anything about the real problems we have going forward.”

What caught my eye, however, was this statement: “Yes, I’m a proud Democrat, but I’m more devoted to my state and my country than I am to my party.”

But Joe, the reason why you lost the election is because you were not devoted to your state. You ignored consensus. What could be more polarizing than that?

To clarify: I wrote one of my previous columns about bipartisanship and cooperation in Congress. While I still believe that these are pillars to strive for, I don’t believe selling out your party or, more importantly, your constituents. What Lieberman was doing wasn’t bipartisan cooperation; it was concession to the current administration.

History was made yesterday as experts believed the left-wing blogosphere played a heavy influence in the election (as well as mention in the sabotage of Lieberman’s website, according to the webmaster, which is currently still down). If anything, bloggers have established that they are a true part of American politics and will be considered by many more candidates in the future.

Lieberman is down, but he’s far from out. He has his supporters and the track record to put together a great campaign. I had previously stated that Lieberman should graciously concede to his opponent, but that doesn’t look like it’ll happen. As the focus of the nation now leaves New England, I can’t help but wonder how this will all play out in November.

 

A Flip Flopping Connecticut Yankee in King Bush’s Court

Today’s Democratic primary in Connecticut will be a very interesting indicator of future events for the Democratic Party. As voters head to the polls, they will seek to set the standard for the future direction of the party and determine the future of a relic’s political career, once established but now deteriorating.

Joe Lieberman, once a Democratic staple and former Vice-Presidential candidate has always maintained a certain independence to his political career, varying in scope with various issues. Ned Lamont, a businessman with little-to-no political experience, has targeted Lieberman with accusations of, essentially, party betrayal. Lamont’s campaign has pointed to pictures of Lieberman embracing Bush, going as far as to call him “Bush’s best friend”.

Lieberman’s defense from this past Sunday (From the Washington Post):

The “biggest lie being told about me by the other side,” Lieberman declared, is “the false charge that I am George Bush’s best friend and enabler.” Lieberman’s closing speech reflected a clear recognition that he had no chance of surviving as long as voters associated him with Bush.

We were then reminded that…

Lieberman “clearly disagreed with and criticized the president” on many aspects of Bush’s Iraq policy.

Strange, because this was a statement he made this past December:

“It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.”

Lieberman is clearly desperate, realizing that he will lose the election if his name is directly or indirectly associated with Bush. His campaign has degenerated, once focusing on labor issues in Connecticut and the inexperience of his opposition, to proclaiming his discontent with the current situation in Iraq and the Bush administration. Too little too late.

Lieberman (and myself) hoped that this election does not revolve around this one issue. But it unfortunately does.

Lieberman’s outspoken support of the Iraq War has pushed him into the moderate camp, isolating him from his former Democratic allies and constituents. Connecticut, a strongly liberal state, is now rallying around Lamont because of a promise to fight against the war. And as much as Lieberman can squirm at the last minute to convince undecided voters that he has changed, he continues to lose what little credibility he had left.

Lieberman has gone as far as to say that “in Washington Lamont would be polarizing”. But if 80% of the Democrats think the Iraq War was a mistake and Lamont agrees with them, then who is he polarizing to? The Republicans?

Lieberman’s independence from his party has been his MO for most of his career. He’s never been Democrat Joe Lieberman, but Joe Lieberman, Democrat. His varying political identity has been his appeal, representing not an established party but his own ideals and that of his state.

But now Lieberman’s independence is his downfall, as it has indirectly led him into Republican graces. In an age of intense political infighting and character attacks on Capitol Hill, this can be tantamount to career suicide.

I would have preferred if Lieberman maintained his moderately conservative idealism, because at least he would still be Joe Lieberman. Nostalgia has a strange way of removing the taste of vomit from your mouth, and I momentarily forgive his conservative leanings. But his actions over the past few days are simply indicative of “Joe Cool”, transcending his Democratic identity to a self-created greater ideal.

What does this imply for the future of the party? Will moderates be attacked by polarizing issues by candidates who know when and where to strike? How about the dependence of a candidate on the rigidness of a party platform versus an autonomous agenda?

The impending issue arises if Lieberman loses. He has declared that he will run as an independent in November if he loses today, and with his experience and reputation, he will put up a great fight. What will this mean for Democrats with respect to the critical seats in Congress in jeopardy? Lieberman has always been a lone-wolf of sorts, but is his ego going to take precedent over his obligation to the party he once represented?

Lieberman’s unapologetic “flip flopping” offends me. What kind of indication is this, of both his personal and political character? Unfortunately, desperation makes good men do bad things, but in a career where moral integrity is a rare asset, how much faith can Connecticut keep in their once favored Senator? Will Lieberman realize the error of his ways and fade out of the spotlight with integrity, or will he drag this on as an acrimonious issue that Democrats will have to deal with for another four months?