Oh, GOP ...

"In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long .... we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship."

- US President Barrack Obama, February 5th, 2009.


America's Right - you GOP - can't you see, there's more to life than preserving the 'unholy thee'? Avarice, greed, they are passe. Stop trying to relive yesterday.

Again we find you peddling the culture of "me" - with no concern for the average "we". Time and circumstance have passed you by - shouldn't you now stop trying to make flawed logic fly.

Can't you not make more of this chance by the one who is reaching out to you. Can't you make peace with your broken past - and try to start anew?

Yes this man is threatening the status-quo. But with good reason - he's seen your show. He sees how your ideology did lay waste to that 'American Dream' most will now never taste.

You had your run dealing in fear and hate - is it not time for your self-fish protestations to abate?

By clinging to division and the ways of the past your jeopardizing, again, that you have sworn to vouchsafe. The future.

Oh, America's Right, you GOP, it's time for something true.

After all, this life can't always be ... just about you!

.

Hillary Clinton? More than an American Choice.

Mr. Friedman,

Haunted by ambivalence since the 'Clinton for State' story broke, I could not place my ruddy nicotine stained finger on the reason for my angst until, blessedly, your column set my simple-mind's eye straight. It captured my feelings perfectly.

Drawing a clear distinction between the inane drama the petty are peddling re: 'Clinton for State' and the true import of what must be taken into account by Mr. Obama as he makes this decision was spot on. Of course, many may wonder why a beer-swilling Canuck such as myself should concern himself with who the president-elect appoints as his US Secretary of State? The answer is simple, their exists a collective 'we', a 'we' consisting of the other western democracies, who recognize that an incoming US administration's choice for who becomes the public face of American policy on the world's stage can make or break our shared economic and democratic ideals. As such, the last thing we wish to see is any appointment that diminishes the honest brokering required to both address and protect our collective concerns.

As you point out, as long as Obama has Hillary's back, in exchange for her pledge to adopt a stance akin to filial respect for his foreign agenda, then all should be well. Given the choice, if I were Obama I would take a chance on Hillary. By all appearances Mrs. Clinton is a serious and professional politician. Her chance to marry her gifts to an Obama presidency should not be sold short. And any discussion of Bill's role is extraneous - he is, and shall remain, a lightening rod - but a lightening rod who recognizes its place is not always a bad thing.

Cheers,

Obama need not walk alone

Dear WaPa,

While it's true the West faces a "delicate" task in balancing the sharing of "more wealth and power with non-Western countries" as it tries to fix the present economic cluster-fook - - your assertion that Obama need provide the public face as well as shoulder the entire reform argument needed to meet the "terms consistent with U.S. interests and values" is flawed. There is one notable omission in your analysis - the role of the American capitalist.

Unless America's economic elite is willing to recognize how its unfailing pursuit of short-term quarterly profits compromises the long-term preservation of the global free-market economy no lasting solution will be possible. Political directed action alone cannot solve this crisis. D.C. centered initiatives are doomed to fail unless those who control the levers of credit reconcile their lending practices with the unsustainable simple-minded investors Pavlovian impulse to seek out the quickest buck. Unless US credit-markets undertake to support new businesses (new neo-capitalists) who have business plans based on lower short-term returns but married to realistic innovations promising to capture tomorrow's 'just-in-time' technologies - the US economy is doomed.

Until the US investor, US businessman, US broker and banker collectively recognize America is on the cusp of an structural abyss that not only threatens the world's free-market economy but US security as well - - and as long as they refuse to reconsider their modus-operandi and lower their collective expectations, then bail-out initiatives will merely serve to placate, rather than solve, the market's systemic flaws.

Much like the "plague", if left untreated , market uncertainty will continue to re-visit US capitalism again and again until one day, like the Missouri Mandan, it will find itself succumbing to an unforgiving pathogen capable of gutting an entire economic culture. Like the long gone Dodo bird, American capitalism risks toying with extinction unless it adapts and proselytizes about its new found patience for backing sustainable development.

Should America's business culture fail to redefine its ideological ethos and question the world's taste for quick profit, then all democratically run markets are apt to fall victim to domestically driven retrenchment strategies. To be clear, the president-elect is not the only character in this drama who must act . It is incumbent on those who peddle, seek, or hoard capital to now rethink their socio-economic roles. If they do not, then any palliative legislative solution introduced by Mr. Obama is fated to fail. Until US capitalists can put aside their individual short-term agenda's and act "collectively" (yes, a la Marx) to restore the world's confidence in the capacity of the US to adapt and innovate in face of profit challenges then capitalism as we know it is, quite obviously, doomed.

President-Elect Obama need not face this crisis alone. Ultimately those who bear the greatest burden for rescuing American capitalism are, ironically[?], America's Capitalist's.

Rich proves columns need not be poor.

Mr. Rich,

Well said. Amid all the daily pundit-dung and dry drivel that tries to pass itself off as legitimate commentary, your columns consistently demonstrates that all is not lost. Your work proves it's possible for those writers willing to put work into the reflective (rather than reactive) phase of political writing can produce reasoned assessments of the partisan landscape that not only engage the reader, but inform the debate. A rare gift - too bad so many of your contemporaries have not set their sights higher to emulate your model.

If the GOP is serious about resurrecting its bankrupt ideological message it should launch a search to find your conservative Doppleganger to articulate its case. Of course, that assumed the GOP right-wing and its moderates can actually unite and come up with something worth articulating?

In the meantime, keep up the campaign calling for the genesis of a cogent and viable opposition to oppose Obama's policies. Not only is an opposition necessary - but were it to both robust and credible - it could only help shape his priorities in ways that could only benefit his presidency.

Kristol & the GOP: Barking up the wrong tree... again

Kristol,

Your column is going to the dogs.

With nary a mention of the real issues facing the GOP, you again cling to the spurious notion that the US is "still a center right country" by saying the election results weren't really as bad as they could have been? Your tea-leaf reading of the voters reported ideological self-identification is not just weak - its absurd. A loss is a loss, and the GOP's demonstrable failure to broaden its base beyond its mostly white, mostly reactionary, old style republicanism is the real issue. Too bad the best advice you could offer your like-minded brethren was that "it wouldn’t hurt" for the "possible 2012 G.O.P. nominees to begin bringing some puppies home for their kids" to broaden their electoral popular appeal? Absurd.

There is only one thing left to say re: your banal analysis.

WOOF!

George Will's take on Obama's voice

Georgie Boy,

Let us get a few things straight. Yes, G.W. Bush's term was, as you point out, defined by war. However, stating that Lincoln's presidency was the last to be so defined is simply wrong - have you forgotten about LBJ? You remember that era don't you? Surely you haven't forgotten - It was about the time you got your draft deferment?

re: your assertion today's economic conditions "have put a polar frost" on the "ambitions" of the recently elected "liberals". Is today's paradox any different than 1932? Yes, in one respect, armed with a history of how and why the reach of FDR's New Deal exceeded its grasp, left-leaning democrats can be expected to temper their irrational impulses and dreams under the tutelage of president-elect Obama's leadership. How could it be otherwise?

Rather than viewing his upcoming challenge as an "affliction" - you should see it for what it is: opportunity borne of crisis. Which leads to a final point; yes, you are right, Obama will find his presidential voice - but if he is to exemplify 'real change' one hardly expects you will like the tune he hums. And that, is how it should be.

Not all Hero's are Republicans

Kristol,

Palin's assertion (and your concurrence) that only John McCain “has truly fought for America” is telling. It highlights the fundamental flaws of neo-cons like yourself who believe mistakenly that all American 'wars' are foreign and not domestic. Blind to the needs of homeland's citizenry you confuse military service, albeit noble, with patriotism.

Indeed, they are many fronts in the battle for the preservation of the nation today and some choose to fight on the fields at home, in the inner cities, and yes as community organizers. Their commitment to the war on inequality and poverty at home, to the war against upper class entitlements are no less important. Heroes come in all shapes and colours and, despite your assertions to the contrary, John McCain is far from the only 'hero' this season who is standing before the American people and pledging to fight for them.

Obama dull? Hardly Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Brooks,

Your fear that Obama may turn out to be "an observer" rather than a "leader" is unfounded. Evidence suggests Obama will be anything but a passive president. Criticized early on by people like you on the right for his soaring rhetoric, Obama was forced to dial down his passionate pleas to the electorate in order to mitigate baseless attacks that tried to pigeonhole him as an empty lofty dreamer. Yet, once the election is over Obama will be free to reengage the voters on an emotional level, to reengage the issues on a personal level, to speak once again in the language of a purposeful poet with a heartfelt vision for the future.

If anything, Obama post election will be free to shed the yolk of blandness his strategists rationalized he needed to project net votes from the heartland. He will be free, once again, to be 'himself'.

Far from a remote and 'dull' figure, in office, one should anticipate that with his passion unfettered by cold electoral calculations, he will yet again bring an engagement and driven approach to the issues. I believe there is little danger he will manifest decision-making paralysis - if anything his administration will one of activist compassionate pragmatism borne of a purpose not witnessed in decades.

Far from a 'celebrity', Obama is, in every sense of the word, a national politician. And at this juncture in American history that is exactly what is needed. Blind ideologues like Bush, and me-firster's like Clinton have had their chance. The country is ready to embrace a true politician.

NYT's "The Crisis Agenda"

fr: http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/07/opinion/07tue1.html

October 7th, 2008 7:16 am
What Obama must highlight in the debate are the untapped assets of the American economy. He must frame the debate over the future as a choice between a status-quo under McCain, or, as an opportunity for both the federal government and the financial sector to fundamentally adjust and retool its approach to the new economic reality.

If he can justify the imperatives for his social agenda and demonstrate he will marry them to a fiscally responsible budgetary approach he will go a long way in giving the voters what they need - peace of mind that the old order will not prevail. That the needs of the middle class will come before the needs of Wall St., that Main St. is not going to be relegated to the policy back-burner.

In essence, all he has to do is convey that his administration would commit itself to bring forth a form of 'compassionate pragmatism' to the challenges of governance.

— BeerBellyBuddah, Winnipeg, Canada