Publius or perish?
Jan 22, 2010 by libjpnA thread for your Publius related musings. What I found interesting was that the underlying difference of the post was 'here is what I am going to do' rather than 'here is what everyone else should do'. Perhaps that is just the difference between domestic and foreign policy. Have at it!
Comments
Jan 22, 2010, 12:18:50 JanieM wrote:
That's an interesting distinction, lj. I wouldn't have thought of it at all and I don't know whether it made any difference. I was just thinking that it was the topic that drew people in. Not just domestic politics for once, but a hot hot hot hot hot button domestic politics topic.
Look: lots of comments! Look: lots of people still lurking in hopes of a conversation about something they're more interested in than Afghanistan, endless Afghanista! And again, that's not meant as a knock on Eric. It's just that the range of subjects has gotten so narrow. And yet look at all the people just waiting to jump in again. Cool!
Jan 22, 2010, 19:05:59 OCSteve wrote:
Even I have to say that it was nice to see him post. I mean he is still totally as wrong as he ever was – but it was a nice change.
;)
Jan 22, 2010, 22:15:43 Slartibartfast wrote:
I don't know whether what publius is doing will be effective or not, but I don't think the problem with the Democrats currently in office is that they're not liberal enough. I think the problem is they're, like most everyone elected to public office, more mindful of reelection than they are of their campaign promises.
Public health insurance was elevated, [b]again[/b], to one of the highest priorities, and rushed to a vote before the people voting on it had even read (and, by extension, understood) it. Of COURSE that's going to cause public outcry.
Look, this is a huge, huge undertaking. To try and do it all at once, with one piece of legislation, is folly. Think [i]spiral development[/i]. Think of this as a project that government will be grappling with for years, not something you've got to hurry up and pass before the Republicans get back in office.
Because: now look. No one is happy. Gays are unhappy, people who were pissed that Bush illegally imprisoned people at Guantanamo and possibly other places are really unhappy, and people whose minimum healthcare needs aren't being met are still not getting what they need, and presumably continue to be unhappy. I'm guessing that the purportedly illegal "wiretapping" activities that the government was involved with continue, because I think otherwise we'd have heard that they'd ceased. Oh, and we continue to be involved heavily in Afghanistan and Iraq, and government continues to be opaque as frosted glass.
Pretty much the entire slate of issues that Obama (as well as that of the Congressional majority) was elected on, has not even [i]begun[/i] to be addressed. The healthcare legislation, even after many months of activity, continues to be a giant pile of WTF.
And the bailouts and stimulus programs? Not going there on whether they're the right thing to do or not, but they've also pissed off a whole pile of Americans. Some of whom are perpetually pissed off anyway, but there are a whole lot more people who have gone activist now; possibly more than there were when Bush was in office.
So, you know, I'm not offering advice or anything. I'm just looking, and telling you what I see. It's possible that I'm wrong, and that the Tea Party movement are all a bunch of racists, and indeed it could be that the election of Brown to the Ted Kennedy Memorial Senate seat was just a display of racism, possibly combined with sexism. Coakley being a woman, and all.
But I don't think that's it. Massachussetts went for Hillary! in the primaries by a fair margin, and they went Obama in the general election by an even larger margin. So there's got to be another reason.
Coakley's ineptitude probably played some part. But perhaps Democrats and Independents aren't quite as enamored of the value of having Democrats run the show, as they were in 2006 and 2008.
Jan 22, 2010, 22:53:50 JanieM wrote:
Hey, Slarti, I'm enjoying these longer thought trains from you. :)
I would like to pick up some threads from the comment above, but don't have time right now. Maybe later.
Jan 22, 2010, 23:12:37 Slartibartfast wrote:
Thanks, JanieM.
I forgot that the outers of Valerie Plame still continue to walk around free, and likewise those who committed war crimes under the Bush administration.
The Democrats in Congress alleging these things have been remarkably quiet about them, of late. I have to think either a) there's not so much to those assertions as they would have had you believe, or b) their own oxen are being gored in some way, if only a little bit.
I'm really confused. Three years ago, we were told that the Bush administration had perpetrated an illegal war on Iraq and had committed all sorts of war crimes, but what's been the focus since we got a Democratic majority in Congress? National health insurance. And of course we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, only deeper.
I am all headscratchy. "I belong to no organized political party" may just qualify as understatement of, well, ever.
I am not, understand, suggesting that the solution to these inconsistencies is to elect more Republicans. Because that would be laughy.
Jan 23, 2010, 00:16:52 Ugh wrote:
Slarti - I'm enjoying long-form Slarti-too!
Anyway, the relative lack of outrage by Dems directed at Obama for doing the same things as Bush (though not all the same things) is most likely explained by the fact that Obama is a Dem, though he hasn't been wholly spared. He thus gets the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise, from other Dems, whereas Bush/GOP get no such thing.
That said, I think we're at that "until proven otherwise" point by now, at least on the issues you raise above (or not, who knows).
But even assuming we are, quite frankly, I don't think you'll hear the level of outrage directed at Obama as was at Bush by Dems (certain people like, say, Glenn Greenwald excepted), not only because he's a Dem, but also because there are people like me who, now that we've had a year of Dem administration and huge Dem majorities in Congress, see very little roll back of the Executive branch monstrosities perpetrated by the Bush administration, and, indeed, the active continuation of some (if not most) of the worst of said monstrosities, and have decided that we're fucked either way (at least on those issues) and don't have the outrage energy anymore.
Not that makes any of the right, of course, just trying to explain what I see.
Jan 23, 2010, 02:08:11 tgott wrote:
"I think the problem is they're, like most everyone elected to public office, more mindful of reelection than they are of their campaign promises."
One of many spot-on comments by Slarti in this thread.
That's why President Obama's first year -- when the Economy should have been Job One -- was so critical, and such a wasted opportunity.
I mean, the man took office with a lot of momentum and goodwill and grand expectations. (Wasn't like he eked out the narrowest of victories or was awarded one by the Supreme Court.)
And now Year One is gone.
And the opportunity to enact real change with it.
For as Slarti notes, Congress will be pretty much at a standstill now, on Campaign Mode (oh, excuse me, that's right, Congress has been pretty much at a standstill for the past year).
And once the 2010 midterms are over, it won't be long before the 2012 presidential campaign gets underway in earnest.
---bedtimeforbonzo
Jan 23, 2010, 02:11:34 tgott wrote:
" . . . people who were pissed that Bush illegally imprisoned people at Guantanamo and possibly other places are really unhappy . . ."
I think we can take out the "possibly" part -- if Rendition counts as imprisonment.
Good to see the Great Obama crack down on Rendition, too.
Jan 23, 2010, 02:44:54 DonaldJ wrote:
Slarti, maybe you should be posting on the front page over at the mother ship. I think they could use the help. Also, not being a Democrat and also not being a far right Republican seems to be an advantage in viewing things. I've been watching liberals and lefties across the blogosphere all caught up in the political strategizing, arguing about whether this bill should or should not be passed as is and whether Jane Hamsher is or is not Evil -it's fascinating how much hatred lefties can work up for each other over differing ideas of what is politically possible and what isn't. But I think they miss the bigger picture, which IMO is pretty much what you said.
As for war crimes, what ugh said. Some of the outrage was partisan. The fact is you can usually find some human rights skeleton in any Administration's closet--if they aren't torturing people themselves they're shipping arms to some murderous government and ignoring how the weapons are used. That's Democrats and Republicans alike. Bush/Cheney crossed the line in being almost open about it, making torture respectable, plus they fit the liberal stereotypes of what an evil Republican politicians ought to be like and on top of that, could hardly do anything right (except things that shouldn't be done). Obama has shoved things back in the closet, saying the right things, maybe stepping back from the worst abuses, but who knows? Appearances count, apparently.
Jan 23, 2010, 07:02:07 libjpn wrote:
Donald has a good point about posting. Don't think of it as taking the field, or even being a substitute, think of it as the rest of the team has fouled out and would forfeit if they don't have five players on the court. You could write about your martial arts, or cooking or anything.
Donald is also correct about the left's infinite propensity to turn on itself. And in my admittedly spotty reading, I don't think there are a lot of people who come out of this smelling like a rose, Hamsher included. But that seems to be the nature of the beast. A friend of mine who went to a left wing protest down at Sasebo with a union acquaintance as a guide, who spent the afternoon detailing all of the various fights, some of with fatal results, between the various groups protesting.
Jan 23, 2010, 08:24:27 nous wrote:
Slarti -- I've been fighting with Feinstein over just about every aspect of Homeland Security overreactions and interrogation techniques and gitmo for years now. It's not like the Democrat's hands were entirely clean prior to Obama taking office. They haven't been driving, but they have been sitting quietly in the back seat and riding along for years.
I'm not happy about what Obama is *not doing* here either, but I don't think it's the same as what the big dogs on HS and terrorism have been doing since 9/11 and I don't think he deserves to take the *exclusive* heat on this. He's a ways down my naughty list.
Jan 23, 2010, 21:30:10 Slartibartfast wrote:
I've never been enamored of Hamsher, in any way. She's roughly a female, straight copy of Andrew Sullivan to me.
Front-page posting is not really for me, because with that comes the expectation that I endlessly fence with commenters, and I just really don't want to argue all that much. This is what I think; make of it what you will and, you know, spare me any nastiness you feel compelled to throw in my direction.
If I could post on that kind of basis, maybe I'd consider it. But then I'd be Charles, more or less, and get my own hate site.
There's really no up-side for me.
Talking about martial arts and general fitness might work, though. It's interesting; I just made brown belt and now people are looking at me as if I'm a whole lot more skilled, when in actuality I'm only fractionally better than I was last week. Odd, that.
Jan 23, 2010, 21:51:24 libjpn wrote:
Hey, martial arts talk is cool, give it a try! One other thing that I think we miss with Hilzoy is a sense of grounding. She used to write about fixing her house and various everyday tasks. I'm sure that someone will throw some nastiness your way, but just ignore them.
Jan 23, 2010, 23:39:11 DonaldJ wrote:
Martial arts or fitness blogging in general would be fine--I don't think you'd have to argue too much on that. Though I've noticed over the years that fitness types are weirdly partisan in their own ways--runners diss walkers (sometimes), walkers diss runners, weightlifters bash the aerobic fitness types and say the only worthwhile form of cardio is interval training...
But I doubt you'd get that at ObiWi.
I'm not actually a fan of Jane Hamsher or a foe--I've just noticed she's the new Nader in terms of being a liberal hate magnet.
Jan 24, 2010, 00:44:47 John Thullen wrote:
Who's going to argue with a brown belt?
That said, I think Slart could get a pretty good yelling match going between
Jes, Dave C., me, Jay Jerome, and the odd troll at OBWI over various modes of exercise.
I say that with utmost affection for all mentioned.
Jan 24, 2010, 01:17:34 tgott wrote:
Here's another vote for Slarti doing some long-form front-paging at the Mothership.
---btfb
PS: "Front-page posting is not really for me, because with that comes the expectation that I endlessly fence with commenters . . ."
Just make sure you get Lindsay's "contract."
Jan 24, 2010, 05:29:39 Slartibartfast wrote:
[quote]Who's going to argue with a brown belt?[quote]
The black belts who kick my butt every week, for one. And Jesurgislac, because she'll argue with pretty much everyone.
Jan 25, 2010, 09:08:13 libjpn wrote:
If there was ever a moment to hop in and stick up an open thread, Slart, now would be it.
Jan 25, 2010, 22:13:47 Slartibartfast wrote:
Done!
Jan 25, 2010, 22:40:40 libjpn wrote:
Nice!
Jan 26, 2010, 06:32:54 Jeff wrote:
Well done, Slarti. Now I have to find something to disagree with you about.
I keed, I keed!
Jan 27, 2010, 06:27:56 DonaldJ wrote:
Good post. I am disappointed to see that the comment thread has not degenerated into a slugfest over the proper way to get into shape. I expect better from the internet.