Speaking of Predictions, Speculation and Resolutions . . .

Posted: December 31, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, just because | 19 Comments

I confess the rolling rumor that Hillary Clinton is a perfect match as the Democratic VP candidate in 2012 fills me with absolute dread.  It’s not because I don’t think she’s qualified or could do the ribbon-cutting ceremonies with her eyes closed.  It’s because she’s over-qualified and could do the ribbon-cutting ceremonies with her eyes closed.

Hillary Clinton riding shotgun does not appeal to any of my senses or sensibilities.  In fact, it makes me damn angry.  Outraged, if you will.  In 2008, the electorate was beguiled, bewitched and hoodwinked by a presidential campaign that sold Barack Obama as the American Idol President, the man who would hold back the seas, bring world peace and a variety of other nonsense.  The man took the Nobel Peace prize without a single accomplishment then promptly continued George Bush’s wars and policies with great gusto.

In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton was portrayed as tiresome, inexperienced former First Lady who’d held white-glove receptions, serving tea like a Geisha girl.  Any accomplishment—her amazing speech in Beijing, her influence in Ireland, her tireless efforts to raise the profile of women and girls throughout the world, her staunch stand on civil rights and her genuine outreach to working class Americans were pooh-poohed and discounted. It was all an act, her critics said.  She was a clone of her husband, Bill Clinton, who was demonized by the so-called regressive/progressives though he was the most popular President since FDR.  Was the man perfect? Hardly.  But he was an effective leader. The Right-Wing noise machine could not bring the Clinton mystique down, even after the Monica Lewinsky debacle.

That would be left to the Democratic leadership.  They turned their back on B. Clinton’s enormous popularity in 2000 [at the expense of Al Gore], and then called Clinton a racist in 2008 for remarks made on the campaign trail.

Barack Obama was the Party’s man and Wall Street’s gift.  A gift from God, Nancy Pelosi said.  The One we’ve been waiting for, Oprah gushed.  He’s almost like a god, Evan Thomas, then editor of Newsweek, exclaimed on the Charlie Rose show.

However, the old maxim of ‘what goes up, must come down’ was still in play.  And the ‘gift from God,’ the President hailed as the world’s savior, landed with a resounding thud once in office.

In Karma-like fashion, Hillary Clinton has flown to amazing heights in her role as Secretary of State—the most admired woman in the world.  She has garnered praise from old enemies, even the Republican hate machine.  Regardless of where you stand on American foreign policy, you’d be hard pressed to ignore her non-stop travel, her enthusiastic reception abroad and her unrelenting support for women’s issues around the globe.  She’s the Energizer Bunny.  Unflappable, seemingly indefatigable.

I feel exhausted just reading her daily schedule.

But now as the 2012 election season gears up, we’re inundated with stories that Obama will switch out Joe Biden for Hillary Clinton—Biden will take State and Hillary will slip right into the number 2 position in DC.

The question is why?  Why would Hillary Clinton step down from the very public and important position as the country’s SOS to accept the very useless position of Vice President?  Hillary is aiming to cut Joe Biden’s throat?  No, don’t think so.  Everything I’ve read has Clinton and Biden on very friendly, mutually respectful terms.  Obama is hankering to throw Joe Biden under the bus?  Again, everything I’ve read indicates that despite his gaffes, Joe Biden has been a loyal Obama helpmate not a hindrance [although throwing people under the bus seems a favorite White House sport].

Hummm.  How about lousy poll numbers?

Robert Reich, whose columns I read and generally agree with wrote an Op-Ed for Nation of Change where he made a personal prediction for 2012:

It’s Obama-Clinton.

Reich went on to state:

Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

Yes, he does and yes, she could stir things up for many disillusioned [dare I say appalled] Democrats.  But why should she?  Why should Hillary Clinton come running in to clean house and save Obama’s ass?

Reich goes onto say:

Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.

Oh, please pass the upchuck bag.  Yes, Hillary could cheer the troops and deflect the bad news and . . .

In addition, Reich concludes:

The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 — offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House . . .

Do you feel manipulated yet?

This is on the heels of Hillary Clinton’s own statement that she has no intention of seeking public office after 2012.  But as we all know women have that cra-a-zy habit of changing their minds.

As do all politicians.

But Reich is not alone in floating this balloon.  His article was quickly followed by former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder saying what a fine idea this was on Neil Cavuto’s show [that would be Fox News] and how Biden’s many public gaffes had made him a liability.

Say it ain’t so, Joe.

In fact, Wilder went so far as to suggest that if something happened to President Obama, Joe Biden stepping in would be too awful to contemplate.

He’s kidding, right?  And again, he picked up the thread that this could be Hillary’s path to the White House in 2016.

On Friday night, I heard the same statement coming from a guest on Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show.  I must say the Reverend seemed somewhat miffed, responding with a variation of: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. In other words, Barack Obama don’t need no stinking woman to prop him up.

But these swirling stories/rumors have been in circulation for months on end.  The most recent version was whipped up shortly before Christmas by Pat Caddell and Doug Shoen.  Caddell, former pollster for Jimmy Carter and Shoen, former pollster for Bill Clinton, have called for a grassroots write-in campaign for Hillary in New Hampshire.  That would be for President.  The reason?

The crisis of national leadership.

That’s a hard line to argue against. However, the days when I got any satisfaction in saying–We told you so—are long gone.

I’m absolutely cynical about this sudden burst of love and admiration for Hillary Clinton.  I don’t like the VP idea one bit. Sorry.  It’s either the catbird seat or no seat at all.  Hillary Clinton earned the nomination in 2008.  She was undisputedly the best the candidate then and now.

For President, not Den Mother.

Clinton has said she has no desire to run again in any capacity.  Until I hear words to the contrary from her lips, I respect that decision and have resigned myself that Hillary Rodham Clinton will leave the political stage in 2012.

I’d like to be wrong; 2016 is not an Eternity.  I resent being manipulated by a power structure that seemingly has few principles beyond winning at all costs, at everyone’s expense: you, me and a woman who has given far more to public service than the smarmy pundits—her passion, time, competence, knowledge and I suspect, even her health.

Color me suspicious and skeptical. If this is some tacky way to win the ‘female vote’ in a razor-thin election, you can count me out.  If Clinton is offered the VP spot, I hope she refuses.  It would break my heart to vote against her.  But I will not vote for a continuation of Barack Obama’s miserable administration.  Not for the good of the Party [what’s left of it] or the specter of monstrous SCOTUS appointments.

Not even for Hillary.

The New Year is looking to bring a host of challenges and a myriad of predictions.  I hope the recent VP chatter is just that–chatter.  In the weeks and months ahead, I’m planning to focus on impressive legislative candidates for 2012, strong progressives fighting to keep seats or claim new wins for Democratic principles in the House and Senate.  These are individuals who could really make a difference in the lives of average Americans.  It’s a fight worth having.

As for the Presidential race?  I’ve pretty much thrown my hands up.  Unless, of course, you’re willing to speculate on a Democratic primary challenge.

Now that’s something even I could believe in!

Why don’t Science and Reason prevail over Superstitions and Ideological Wishful Thinking?

Posted: December 30, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , , | 21 Comments

Paul Krugman asks one more time why over 80 years of economic study, data, and theory have been thrown to the wind for failed ideological hypotheses. He asks why conventional wisdom denies everything that thousands of economists have studied, researched, and debated that now has become accepted theory?  Our current experience shows that what we’ve learned over the years is correct. Why are failed hypotheses based on ideological wishful thinking running policy these days?  I ask this about my own discipline, but we could just as well ask about why we have to fight to keep iron age myths out of biology classes and fight to keep basic scientific theory like evolution and climate science in?  Why do people keep relying on disproved hypotheses, conspiracy theories, and absolutely outdated religious stories?

Here’s the narrative that applies to my discipline from Krugman.

Unfortunately, in late 2010 and early 2011, politicians and policy makers in much of the Western world believed that they knew better, that we should focus on deficits, not jobs, even though our economies had barely begun to recover from the slump that followed the financial crisis. And by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again.

In declaring Keynesian economics vindicated I am, of course, at odds with conventional wisdom. In Washington, in particular, the failure of the Obama stimulus package to produce an employment boom is generally seen as having proved that government spending can’t create jobs. But those of us who did the math realized, right from the beginning, that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (more than a third of which, by the way, took the relatively ineffective form of tax cuts) was much too small given the depth of the slump. And we also predicted the resulting political backlash.

So the real test of Keynesian economics hasn’t come from the half-hearted efforts of the U.S. federal government to boost the economy, which were largely offset by cuts at the state and local levels. It has, instead, come from European nations like Greece and Ireland that had to impose savage fiscal austerity as a condition for receiving emergency loans — and have suffered Depression-level economic slumps, with real G.D.P. in both countries down by double digits.

The stupidity is killing our economy.  The stupidity is also forcing medical research back to the dark ages too.  Taliban-like forces in the US have made up research that says that fetuses with no developed central nervous systems ‘feel pain’.  They have invented bogus ‘partial birth abortion’ procedures out of thin air.  They’ve even based laws on these falsehoods.  We have crazies defining zygotes as fully functional human beings with some narrative that a fertilized egg is just some little microscopic person encased in a membrane.

We have tons of Taliban-like idiots trying to convince every one that the data on global warming is just some made up agenda.  Yet, tons of biologists have studied and published research articles on the radical changes in habitat and migration patterns.  Meteorologists have reams of data showing the extremes in weather and temperatures that have shifted significantly in statistical terms.  It is so pervasive and significant  that no scientist that’s not associated with some whacky religion denies global warming. Geologists have documented the changes in water levels and ice formations.  Yet, I can still read some one that notes one cold day in summer and on the basis of that anecdote declares global warming to be a hoax.  They obviously don’t understand that extreme cold in one area of the globe means extreme heat someplace else. However, some one without one college science course can get on TV and proclaim an entire discipline to be deluded.

One possible  answer to my question is there is an evil partnership of corporations and the rich who profit from ignorance and those who follow strict religious ideology who thrive on ignorance period.  These folks have overwhelming political power and access to media.  The media these days refuses to call out lies and fact check  blowhards.  They bring on a politician or a media pundit but NEVER an actual scientist with years of learning and research in the area.  The media even goes along by repeating the change in word meanings that have plagued us recently.  Radical ideas are being put forth as “conservative”.  Conspiracy theories are being held up as just another point of view.  Ever since media has been driven by profits, we have media more interested in ratings and not getting boycotted than actually putting out some useful information.  It is no wonder that we are seeing a systematic destruction of public schools and universities.  The only way this march of ignorance can continue is with a systematic destruction of institutions that actually teach science to people.  There has never been a time when this quote by Jonathan Swift is more relevant since the Dark Ages which were brought on by the same group of religious nuts that tanked scientific thought hundreds of years ago.

“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”

The same thing can be said about true and genius theories.  The confederacy of dunces will thump their books full of myths and conspiracies and deny people access to science, reason, and truth.

Here’s a pretty good list of how insane the Republican Party has become in terms of irrational, unscientific, and unreasonable positions per the UK’s The Economist.  Notice the use of the term “fatwahs” which implies they’re waging a religious war. Also please remember that this magazine is not exactly a bastion of socialist thought.

Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.

These fatwas explain the rum list of candidates: you either have to be an unelectable extremist who genuinely believes all this, or a dissembler prepared to tie yourself in ever more elaborate knots (the flexible Mr Romney). Several promisingly pragmatic governors, including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, never even sought the nomination. Jon Huntsman, the closest thing to a moderate in the race (who supports gay marriage and action to combat climate change), is polling in low single figures.

More depressingly, the fatwas have stifled ideas, making the Republican Party the enemy of creative positions it once pioneered. The idea of requiring every American to carry health insurance (thus broadening the insurance pool and reducing costs) originated in the conservative Heritage Foundation as a response to Clinton-care, and was put into practice by then-Governor Romney in Massachusetts. All this Mr Romney has had to disavow, just as Mr Gingrich has had to recant his ideas on climate change, while Rick Perry is still explaining his appalling laxity as governor of Texas in allowing the children of illegal immigrants to receive subsidised college education.

WTF is wrong with our country?  Our religious freedom was enshrined in the first amendment.  Our scientific advances led to men on the moon, the elimination of some of the world’s worst plagues, and the lap top computer.  Our melting pot of people fleeing class systems and oppression all over the place evolved into a great democracy that provided public education for all and opportunity for any one that wanted it.  Why has it  come down to this?

Sappy or Cynical? What’s Your Preference in Christmas Movies?

Posted: December 25, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: | 17 Comments

Even though I’ve never been a huge fan of Christmas, I used to love to break out the hankerchiefs and watch “It’s a Wonderful Life” every year on New Year’s Eve.

And I admit to sobbing while watching “Scrooge,” starring Alister Sim–the absolute best version of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”–back in the day. This version is great because it shows how Scrooge got to be so messed up. He was abandoned by his parents, left to spend Christmas alone at his boarding school.

I even liked the remake with George C. Scott as Scrooge. These movies would only be shown on TV once during the Christmas/New Year’s season, and I kind of looked forward to seeing them again each Christmas season.

Then at some point, maybe during the 1980s, the copyrights ran out on some of those great old holiday movies, and the TV stations started showing them about 25 times a week beginning around Thanksgiving. Now I simply can’t get through “It’s A Wonderful Life” anymore. It’s been totally ruined for me. I even got a bit sick of “Scrooge,” when I couldn’t turn on the TV without seeing it.

My taste now runs more toward black comedies like Bad Santa, which IMHO has to be the best Christmas movie ever. There are also some Christmas-themed horror movies–those can be fun if you’re in the right mood.

For anyone who happens to stop by tonight, would you please tell us what your favorite sappy or cynical Christmas movies is? I promise I won’t laugh at you if you like the sentimental ones. I totally understand. I can still be sucked in. Here are a few clips just to get you started. First the Sappy: a clip from Scrooge with Alistair Sim,

and one from We’re No Angels with Humphrey Bogart and pals as escaped convicts.

And now some cynical ones: Billy Bob Thornton in Bad Santa,

and Dennis Leary as a burglar who ends up having to play marriage counselor for a squabbling couple at Christmas time.

And here’s a bonus Christmas horror movie–just a mild one.

Now, what are your favorites?

Pat Robertson Calls SNL Sketch “Anti-Christian Bigotry”

Posted: December 19, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, religious extremists, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Yesterday Tom Brady and the New England Patriots crushed Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos 41-23 at Mile High Stadium. Denver had won its six previous games. Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow wears his “Christian” faith on his sleeve. In fact he appeared in an anti-abortion ad for Focus on the Family in the 2010 Superbowl.

In a piece in Esquire, Tom Junod calls Tebow a “religious figure” who seems to be winning games because of his faith rather than his athletic skills.

Tim Tebow does not — and, for now, cannot — complete 60 percent of his passes. He’s strong, so he can shot-put and corkscrew the ball all over the field, but he often looks like he’s throwing the ball away when he’s not, and he avoids interceptions by coming nowhere near his intended receiver. It would be tempting to say that none of this matters to the legions he has inspired, but of course it’s all that matters: Because Tim Tebow is a religious figure rather than an athletic one, the limitations of his talent wind up testifying to the potency of his faith. The fact that he’ll be almost comically inept for three quarters and then catch an updraft of mastery in the fourth serves to demonstrate not that he’s a winner but that Jesus is — and, above all, that Christianity works.

So why did the Broncos lose yesterday? The most recent SNL presented a skit in which Jesus himself provided the answer.

See? Christianity works! Devilish Brady and Belichick won because Jesus was otherwise occupied. But “The Rev.” Pat Robertson was outraged by the “anti-Christian bigotry” demonstrated by the SNL skit.

On the latest episode of The 700 Club, the televangelist thought the segment was brought on by “an anti-Christian bigotry that’s disgusting.”

“If this had been a Muslim country and they had done that, and had Muhammad doing that stuff, you would have found bombs being thrown off, and bodies on the street,” he said. “We need more religious faith in our society, we’re losing our moral compass in our nation.”

Robertson went on to praise Tebow for his faith.

“I think he is a wonderful human being,” he said. “And this man has been placed in a unique position and I applaud him, God bless him.”

Obama believes he accomplished more in his first two years than any president except Lincoln, LBJ, and FDR

Posted: December 17, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because | 24 Comments

Well he certainly tops most presidents in terms of positive self-regard. I found this story on the right wing blog News Busters (via Memeorandum), and at first I wondered if it was legit. Did Obama really say that?

Yes, yes he did. CBS edited it out of their 60 Minutes interview, but the whole interview is posted on their website “60 Minutes Overtime” along with a transcript.

STEVE KROFT (60 Minutes): Tell me, what do you consider your major accomplishments? If this is your last speech. What have you accomplished?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we’re not done yet. I’ve got five more years of stuff to do. But not only saving this country from a great depression. Not only saving the auto industry. But putting in place a system in which we’re gonna start lowering health care costs and you’re never gonna go bankrupt because you get sick or somebody in your family gets sick. Making sure that we have reformed the financial system, so we never again have taxpayer-funded bailouts, and the system is more stable and secure. Making sure that we’ve got millions of kids out here who are able to go to college because we’ve expanded student loans and made college more affordable. Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Decimating al Qaeda, including Bin Laden being taken off the field. Restoring America’s respect around the world.

The issue here is not gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do. And we’re gonna keep on at it.

Here’s my list of accomplishments:

Defending CIA torturers
Defending Bush and Cheney
Continuing the Patriot Act
Watering down the financial reform bill
Preventing prosecution of banksters
Extending the Bush tax cuts
Preventing single payer health care and public option
Assassinating American citizens on foreign soil
Ensuring the ability to indefinitely detail American citizens on U.S. soil
Ramping up Afghanistan war

I’m sure there’s lot’s more. Can you think of any more accomplishments?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →