Anyway. As SOF says: we are in the bonus round and will enjoy the bonus time as long as it lasts.
Now, back to the politics of the moment:
Firedoglake continues this long discussion about the conservative nostalgia for a non-existent past. And if you haven't seen the Jon Stewart interview with Lou Dobbs, then you might want to check it out. Speaking of non-existent, that is. I used to think that Dobbs was intelligent. I am now realizing that I fall into the same trap that everyone else does with him and Dick Cheney. Their appearance, voice, etc., communicates gravitas and intelligence. Their words, however, do not.
Dobbs is convinced that Obama is no different than Bush in that he is taking the country out of the middle. When Jon tries to get him to explain why the crazies didn't somehow accuse Bush of tyranny or taking their country away, Dobbs dissembles and distracts. I don't think he knows how to answer, because he is so far to the right (while still believing he is in the middle) that he can't see it.
But amazingly, he asserts that Obama is trying to hijack the country with healthcare, and that it is a subversion of democracy, and that is why the teabaggers are so angry. Jon does a pretty good job of noting that people voted last fall, but doesn't make it explicit that Obama won a hell of a lot of votes promising to bring healthcare reform. How Dobbs can then see healthcare reform as some perversion of democracy is beyond me.
I have also been enjoying Sullivan and others post on Sarah Palin's "book." Conservatives (well, the grownup kind) are also pretty dismissive. Rod Dreher's blog is not impressed and especially with her muddled form of populism where Big Business is a problem, but then also says that those who disagree with Big Business are echoing Marx.
It is fascinating, though, to read how she discovered through her work how big business gets cozy with big government, to the detriment of the common good. But she cannot let that knowledge get in the way of reciting her 1980s GOP catechism about the market. Weirdly, she goes on and on about how capitalism must be allowed to work, and let the creative-destruction chips fall where they may ... and yet later will talk about how wrong it is that Alaska's natural gas industry remains undeveloped because it's been cheaper for Big Oil to explore and develop natural gas sources in places where the labor and infrastructure is cheaper. Sarah, I hate to break it to you, but you can't complain about government meddling in the economy as a Bad Thing, but then turn around and complain about Big Business doing what Big Business does, which is to maximize profits by cutting labor costs.And concludes:
But she is so far from being capable of being president of the United States it's not even funny. I know, I know, this isn't news, but you'd think that if there was anything more to her in terms of intellectual seriousness and judgment than we saw last fall, she'd have brought it out in a memoir she had most of a year to write with the help of a professional writer. But there's no there there. I'm not saying she's a bad person -- I don't believe she's a bad person at all -- but I am saying she's not a credible national political leader.Putting that mildly, I think.
4 comments:
I am glad your dog is doing better. We went through some rough times this past summer with ours and I know how stressful it can be.
I am not a Dobbs fan, nor have I really paid attention to him. He always seemed like kind of a jerk, so I don't feel that I am missing anything. Even if Obama had never said anything about health care, it is perfectly within his power to advocate for it, given the fact that we are a republic. I have many concerns about the speed, the scope of the changes, and the cost of the reforms, but it is unfair to say that this somehow a "hijacking". This is certainly a legitimate use of power.
As for Palin's book, I have to admit that the whole spectacle is boring. One of my other favorite bloggers characterizes it as theater. In this case, we have the outraged and angry left that despises her and views her as the righ wing boogeyman. On the other side is the overly sensitive right that continues to view her as some kind of martyr and feeds off of the criticism of her.
What is interesting about the healthcare reform debate, is that the Republicans pushed through a Medicare drug bill that had no cost offsets, and was only deficit spending. This healthcare proposal, according to most estimates, will be paid for. It will cost, but it will be paid for. Guess where those Republicans were when it was Karl Rove and Bush breathing down their neck?
As for Palin, I kind of disagree with your characterization. She is relevant primarily because she is the person that the right wing was willing to put within close distance of the oval office, and continued to defend as some kind of reasonable leader. Every time she opens her mouth, she proves how unfit she is for high office, and the fact that the Republican base still likes her tells us an amazing amount about that base. And none of it is good.
Thanks for the good thoughts for our dog. He has had a few better days, and we have some cautious optimism, but have to just wait and see.
Well, I certainly can't speak for the Republican base, but I wonder how she will play out in the long run. Some of her appeal seems due to the weak pool of candidates in the last election. As for now, I am not really sure. You would probably have to ask someone who really likes her.
No doubt, Steve, but with all due respect, you do not seem to be a member of the Republican "base." You didn't cheer torture, nor were you a mindless supporter of Bush no matter what. Those who maintained that support even after Katrina and torture are the base--the ones who like Liz Cheney and adore Sarah Palin. And yes, they are not deep and cannot win a national election. But they are the base that drives a lot of the local represenative elections in the South, and have produced a lot of the idiots in Congress. Just see my latest post for an example. :)
Post a Comment