Election 2008--CLOSED

[brokebacktom]

The GOP at an all time low with only 34% favorable rating, lowest in history. Dropped from 40% since last month.



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/20/poll-gop-image-goes-from-bad-to-worse/

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

I don't see anything approaching the "far left" on America's political scene, but I suppose it depends on who you ask. Limbaugh and Coulter would probably consider me a bomb-throwing, baby-killing terrorist. But they would see
this entire forum as full of the same. The American far left must be deep in hibernation. Democrats are the new center.

All great posts, Rick, and likening libertarian ideal to Somalia is a good way to dramatize the consequences of that ideology.

Thanks especially for answering my question about the "far left."  I live in the bible belt and I know what it means here if someone says the "far left" -- they mean pro-choice, and gay agenda. 

You hit the nail on the head that Limbaugh and Coulter would liken us here to baby killing and bomb throwing -- when in fact, that is the result of demonizing, and it is repeated so much that it begins to seem true -- to the extent that the far right perceives a moral and national crisis with democrat as President. 

When in fact the moral and national crisis is our current state of affairs, under President Bush.  It is really unspeakably sad -- but I still hope reason will ultimately prevail.  Maybe here in Texas I am subjected to more right-wing despair than the rest of you.  Although, when I think about it, most of it is in the press, not anyone I know. 

[Sandy]

gary et al, it has seemed to me, for a long time now, that real conservative have a home in the libertarian party.  perhaps thy lack skilled leadership, and clout, but if all the fleeing true conservatives were to mass migrate to the libertarian party, i would imagine that the few disparities could be ironed out and some fresh yet tested ideas injected, bringing it more in line with ideal conservatism, the makings of a soon to be viable party are there.

since i imagine you must have looked over the libertarian party from time to time, where do you think they part company with established conservative thought? 

Jack,

This will be a little stale when you read it, but what the hell. I agree that many conservatives gravitate towards the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party has done its best to distance itself from libertarians because they appear to be very radical in such areas as defense, law and order and business. Libertarians would prefer a true "level playing field" in business, one that doesn't cater to special interest groups or one's friends and donors in Texas and the energy industries a la Bush-Cheney. In downsizing government, many libertarians would have no qualms about selling off parts of the armed forces, either.

Sandy

A really good exposition of what Libertarians have been talking about is found in Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, state and utopia."

[brokebacktom]

Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state. The extent to which government is necessary, if at all, is evaluated from a variety of distinct metaphysical, epistemological, and moral grounds. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

[Rosewood]

From today's NY Times online.
Intelligent column.
Coming as it does from a conservative with
whom I've disagreed frequently in the past.

Starts off a bit snarky - well, Brooks can't help
himself - but the rest is right on the money.

*****************************************

The Insider’s Crusade
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 21, 2008

Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. Barack Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) will take the oath of office as his wife, Michelle (Princeton, Harvard Law), looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including perhaps Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), Jim Steinberg (Harvard, Yale Law) and Susan Rice (Stanford, Oxford D. Phil.).

The domestic policy team will be there, too, including Jason Furman (Harvard, Harvard Ph.D.), Austan Goolsbee (Yale, M.I.T. Ph.D.), Blair Levin (Yale, Yale Law), Peter Orszag (Princeton, London School of Economics Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Greg Craig (Harvard, Yale Law).

This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs. Even more than past administrations, this will be a valedictocracy — rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes. If a foreign enemy attacks the United States during the Harvard-Yale game any time over the next four years, we’re screwed.

Already the culture of the Obama administration is coming into focus. Its members are twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them, three times if you include the columnists. They typically served in the Clinton administration and then, like Cincinnatus, retreated to the comforts of private life — that is, if Cincinnatus had worked at Goldman Sachs, Williams & Connolly or the Brookings Institution. So many of them send their kids to Georgetown Day School, the posh leftish private school in D.C., that they’ll be able to hold White House staff meetings in the carpool line.

And yet as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons (not to mention the incursion of a French-style government dominated by highly trained Enarchs), I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition.

The fact that they can already leak one big appointee per day is testimony to an awful lot of expert staff work. Unlike past Democratic administrations, they are not just handing out jobs to the hacks approved by the favored interest groups. They’re thinking holistically — there’s a nice balance of policy wonks, governors and legislators. They’re also thinking strategically. As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute notes, it was smart to name Tom Daschle both the head of Health and Human Services and the health czar. Splitting those duties up, as Bill Clinton did, leads to all sorts of conflicts.

Most of all, they are picking Washington insiders. Or to be more precise, they are picking the best of the Washington insiders.

Obama seems to have dispensed with the romantic and failed notion that you need inexperienced “fresh faces” to change things. After all, it was L.B.J. who passed the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, because he is so young, Obama is not bringing along an insular coterie of lifelong aides who depend upon him for their well-being.

As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory. One may not agree with them on everything or even most things, but a few things are indisputably true.

First, these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence. Orszag, who will probably be budget director, is trusted by Republicans and Democrats for his honest presentation of the facts.

Second, they are admired professionals. Conservative legal experts have a high regard for the probable attorney general, Eric Holder, despite the business over the Marc Rich pardon.

Third, they are not excessively partisan. Obama signaled that he means to live up to his postpartisan rhetoric by letting Joe Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship.

Fourth, they are not ideological. The economic advisers, Furman and Goolsbee, are moderate and thoughtful Democrats. Hillary Clinton at State is problematic, mostly because nobody has a role for her husband. But, as she has demonstrated in the Senate, her foreign-policy views are hardheaded and pragmatic. (It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power’s set of interests at the U.N.)

Finally, there are many people on this team with practical creativity. Any think tanker can come up with broad doctrines, but it is rare to find people who can give the president a list of concrete steps he can do day by day to advance American interests. Dennis Ross, who advised Obama during the campaign, is the best I’ve ever seen at this, but Rahm Emanuel also has this capacity, as does Craig and legislative liaison Phil Schiliro.

Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haute bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.

[WhenPigsFly]

Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haute bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.

IF true, this should make Brooks positively giddy:

Former National Counterrorism Center head John Brennan is Barack Obama's "favorite to be nominated director of the Central Intelligence Agency." According to Marc Ambinder's sources (The Atlantic), Brennan has been vetted and even begun recruiting his team.

The news has alarmed Obama supporters who remember Brennan best for his role in both faulty pre-war intelligence and agreement with Vice President Dick Cheney on torture.

Glenn Greenwald writes, "I'm both entirely unsurprised and basically undisturbed by the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed largely of standard Washington establishment figures and pro-Iraq-War hawks." But Brennan is "a different matter."

To appoint someone as CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence who was one of George Tenet's closest aides when The Dark Side of the last eight years was conceived and implemented, and who, to this day, continues to defend and support policies such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition (to say nothing of telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping), is to cross multiple lines that no Obama supporter should sanction. Truly turning a page on the grotesque abuses of the last eight years requires both symbolism (closing Guantanamo) and substantive policy changes (compelling adherence to the Army Field Manual, ensuring due process rights for all detainees, ending rendition, restoring safeguards on surveillance powers). Appointing John Brennan to a position of high authority would be to affirm and embrace, not repudiate, the darkest aspects of the last eight years.


Andrew Sullivan, in a post titled "No Way. No How. No Brennan," adds:

[T]he Republican, former chief-of-staff for George Tenet (who authorized war crimes as CIA head), admirer of Dick Cheney, CEO of the company one of whose contract employees improperly accessed Obama's and McCain's passports, and defender of renditions and "enhanced interrogations" is still Obama's front-runner pick to head the CIA. No, I'm not making this up. ...

Brennan was complicit and naive in the run-up to the Iraq war. And Obama wants to reward him? Brennan is also a believer in Cheney's term "the dark side," wishing merely to have some limits within it. He clearly has a mindset that has far more in common with the war crimes of his former boss than with the clear, and indisputable beliefs of the Obama movement.

...

The least we know is that Brennan is ambivalent about [torture]. Ambivalence on this matter is unacceptable. We haven't fought for decency and reform and a return to American values for so long to be turned back now. We didn't work our butts off to elect Obama only to get Bush another four years at CIA

[jack]

thanks for passing that along ropsewood.  brooks had so aligned himself with the neo cons for a long time that his analytical thinking became lost in the drivel.  i found him unwatchable and unreadable for the past 4 years.  this may not redeem him, but it adds a solid critical voice to the mix.

for the life of me, i can't see what he is objecting to in the leading paragraphs.  having a first class education doesn't insulate one from the realities of the world as surely as lacking intellectual curiosity and reasoned thinking.

[garyd]

thanks for passing that along ropsewood.  brooks had so aligned himself with the neo cons for a long time that his analytical thinking became lost in the drivel.  i found him unwatchable and unreadable for the past 4 years.  this may not redeem him, but it adds a solid critical voice to the mix.

for the life of me, i can't see what he is objecting to in the leading paragraphs.  having a first class education doesn't insulate one from the realities of the world as surely as lacking intellectual curiosity and reasoned thinking.

I think it is an allusion to Agnew's "effete corps of impudent snobs" crap from long ago.
Totally unnecessary for Brooks to do this but I guess he thought it was clever.

I tend to like Brooks, of course, especially on the PBS evening news.  Like all them, however, he can get pretty full of himself.

[michaelflanagansf]

I don't see anything approaching the "far left" on America's political scene, but I suppose it depends on who you ask. Limbaugh and Coulter would probably consider me a bomb-throwing, baby-killing terrorist. But they would see
this entire forum as full of the same. The American far left must be deep in hibernation. Democrats are the new center.

All great posts, Rick, and likening libertarian ideal to Somalia is a good way to dramatize the consequences of that ideology.

Thanks especially for answering my question about the "far left."  I live in the bible belt and I know what it means here if someone says the "far left" -- they mean pro-choice, and gay agenda. 

You hit the nail on the head that Limbaugh and Coulter would liken us here to baby killing and bomb throwing -- when in fact, that is the result of demonizing, and it is repeated so much that it begins to seem true -- to the extent that the far right perceives a moral and national crisis with democrat as President. 

Part of the problem with defining what the 'far left' in the U.S. is about is that the whole notion became confused in the 60s and 70s with lots of issues of identity politics and liberal ideas - so you wind up with environmentalism being considered 'leftist', when in fact it could just as easily be considered conservative.

There were some issues where people were calling for large government programs that could have been considered socialist - and frankly socialist, which is considered center left in many European nations, is considered far left here.  So, for example, when the phrase 'free abortion on demand' was used in the 70s that would have implied some sort of large social program that would have grown the government.

Many issues that were identified with the left - gay rights and liberalized drug laws, for example - are really more libertarian than leftist.  That's pretty clear when you look at the policies of Communist nations (Cuba, China, Vietnam - and the former record of the Soviet Union) towards both drug law and gay rights.  There is not anything necessarily 'left' about advocating that people should not be arrested for smoking pot or be able to marry who they choose.

And some issues which would be truly leftist - like re-institutionalizing the homeless mentally ill - are actively opposed by people who are 'liberal' and believe there is a 'freedom' to rot on the streets.  I have often had to patiently explain to my liberal friends that a true leftist believes in the greatest good for the greatest number in society - and that the notion of crazed individuals wandering around on the streets is a bit closer to Johnny Appleseed than Karl Marx.

I believe there is a place for 'big government' - and it is not only to defend our borders (which is generally where libertarians stand on this).  For example, when a new disease shows up in your country which has the potential for killing hundreds of thousands of people there, and millions more throughout the world, I believe that the government has a place in doing all that it can to stop this.  Instead of, for example, waiting 7 years to print up a pamphlet advocating safe sex - and fighting internally in your administration about this because you are worried about the messages that it will send school children.

Another example would be building up the government regulations on industries that effect global climate when that appears to be an issue - like, for example, what Brazil has done with it's use of biofuel to achieve energy independence.  But again, that is just leftist and not 'far left' - which would, in this case, be the way China has reacted to the crisis (i.e., not very well).

There really has not been a considerable presence on the 'far left' of the U.S. since the days of Eugene Debs, Upton Sinclair and Henry Wallace.  And even in their candidacies there was much which was uniquely American (like the drive for racial equality) that did not particularly have anything to do with far left politics (ask the Tibetans about this).  So (imho) there really isn't a far left in the U.S. - except for a very small group of Marxists, Socialist-Worker Party and the like that have been around (and ineffectual) since the 60s.

[CellarDweller115]

for the life of me, i can't see what he is objecting to in the leading paragraphs.  having a first class education doesn't insulate one from the realities of the world as surely as lacking intellectual curiosity and reasoned thinking.

Thank you, Jack.

I've often wondered aloud why some people were going on about Obama's "elitist education", and how he was "out of touch" with the typical American.

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would want a "typical American" as president.  I want someone who is better than the rest, myself included.  I want someone who is calm, rational, intelligent, and definitely not "run of the mill" as the leader of my country.

[michaelflanagansf]

Good news!  I found another group of individuals not associated with the Clintons that we can get into the administration - Lizard People.  Apparently they are popular in Minnesota (see ballot #5):

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/

[brokebacktom]

Good news!  I found another group of individuals not associated with the Clintons that we can get into the administration - Lizard People.  Apparently they are popular in Minnesota (see ballot #5):

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/

I filled out all the questions. Most went to Norm ot throw them out.  I hope this ends soon. I feel Norm might pull it off, either way its the closes race in MN history.

[michaelflanagansf]

(It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power’s set of interests at the U.N.)

Gosh, I don't know if she'd like working with monsters.

[Rosewood]

Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haute bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.

IF true, this should make Brooks positively giddy:

Former National Counterrorism Center head John Brennan is Barack Obama's "favorite to be nominated director of the Central Intelligence Agency." According to Marc Ambinder's sources (The Atlantic), Brennan has been vetted and even begun recruiting his team.

The news has alarmed Obama supporters who remember Brennan best for his role in both faulty pre-war intelligence and agreement with Vice President Dick Cheney on torture.

Glenn Greenwald writes, "I'm both entirely unsurprised and basically undisturbed by the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed largely of standard Washington establishment figures and pro-Iraq-War hawks." But Brennan is "a different matter."

To appoint someone as CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence who was one of George Tenet's closest aides when The Dark Side of the last eight years was conceived and implemented, and who, to this day, continues to defend and support policies such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition (to say nothing of telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping), is to cross multiple lines that no Obama supporter should sanction. Truly turning a page on the grotesque abuses of the last eight years requires both symbolism (closing Guantanamo) and substantive policy changes (compelling adherence to the Army Field Manual, ensuring due process rights for all detainees, ending rendition, restoring safeguards on surveillance powers). Appointing John Brennan to a position of high authority would be to affirm and embrace, not repudiate, the darkest aspects of the last eight years.


Andrew Sullivan, in a post titled "No Way. No How. No Brennan," adds:

[T]he Republican, former chief-of-staff for George Tenet (who authorized war crimes as CIA head), admirer of Dick Cheney, CEO of the company one of whose contract employees improperly accessed Obama's and McCain's passports, and defender of renditions and "enhanced interrogations" is still Obama's front-runner pick to head the CIA. No, I'm not making this up. ...

Brennan was complicit and naive in the run-up to the Iraq war. And Obama wants to reward him? Brennan is also a believer in Cheney's term "the dark side," wishing merely to have some limits within it. He clearly has a mindset that has far more in common with the war crimes of his former boss than with the clear, and indisputable beliefs of the Obama movement.

...

The least we know is that Brennan is ambivalent about [torture]. Ambivalence on this matter is unacceptable. We haven't fought for decency and reform and a return to American values for so long to be turned back now. We didn't work our butts off to elect Obama only to get Bush another four years at CIA

If this is all true about Brennan, then I am indeed disappointed in Obama's choice.
See, here's the conundrum.
We want Obama to be perfect.
Therefore, we assume, his choices will be perfect as well.
But he's not. Perfect, I mean.
So we're bound to be disappointed in him at some point here or there.
How can we expect otherwise?
And, by the way, should we?

Perhaps I might say he's 'perfectly' human, and as so, he will make mistakes.
And you know, we need to allow this in him. We CANNOT assume that
every choice he makes will achieve perfection and fulfill all our dreams for the country.
Listen, I'll be happy if we get close.
Especially after the dismal criminal incompetence of the past eight years.
But let's keep our enthusiasm for Obama and his coming Presidency tethered somewhere
within the scope of reality.

No, I would NOT want to see this Brennan as head of CIA.
(IF what they write about him is true.)
BUT, I trust that Obama has insider knowledge and instincts that I most certainly DO NOT have.
I trust that he knows what he's doing.
That's why I voted for him.

I also trust that if he makes a mistake, he'll be quick to correct it.
I trust that he's intelligent enough, has the backbone and wherewithall to change course midstream,
if necessary, for the good of the country. I don't see him as a rigid nationalist idealogue.

I know nothing about this Brennan person, but from what you say, I am alarmed.

But again, I'm willing to give Obama his lead.
I'm willing to move forward on faith that he knows what he's doing.
I do NOT know better than he, what would be best for our country.
If I did, I'd probably run for office.

[tonydude]

   Dear JD - thanks for your post above, about John Brennan being a frontrunner for Director of the CIA.  With all his Bush/Cheney baggage, this is a big hurt.  And a direct menace to our safety and civil liberties.  The two are inter-connected, as those who went to "the dark side" are the same ones who can't seem to get information gathering unbiased and reliable.
   It's looking more and more that Obama feels he has to shore up his credentials as tough on terrorists by keeping the same-old, same-old jerks from the right wing, when what we really need is oversight, accountability and de-politicalization of the intelligence community.  I can understand that he doesn't want to create an unstable climate in the military and intelligence communities, but, for crying out loud, there are tons of pre-Bushie bureaucrats, well-respected, and untarnished by even the whiff of criminality.  Looks to me like he's trying to gain the confidence and support of the wrong people.  It may well be that one of Obama's talents, healing divisions, may yet be his Achilles heel.  Sometimes consensus is wrong and throw the rascals out is the best way to go.