1. Michael Phelps got one more gold medal than all of Canada. Their desire to be taken more seriously in world affairs may have to be deferred.
2. Synchronized diving looks pretty silly in sports.
3. Synchronized diving is highly effective in politics.
4. No North Carolina justice of the peace would have performed a marriage for any of those Chinese gymnasts. They'd have to drive down to South Carolina, and would still have to pay a bribe.
5. It turns out you can count the Clintons out.
6. Russia has been paying attention to the ongoing diplomatic dialogue between the United States and North Korea and has learned its overarching lesson very well.
7. Women's beach volleyball was on 18 hours a day either because it requires incredible skill and consummate athleticism or because the participants wear bikinis
8. Georgia won no gold medals because "doing something insanely stupid on the ludicrous assumption that France, Germany and Italy will do anything about it" is not yet an Olympic event.
9. John Edwards is a rich idiot with surprisingly questionable tastes in new age crazy ladies but at least we were spared one last rendition of "Two Americas" at the convention.
10. While the Olympics and the Democratic convention were going on the Bush Administration agreed to let India become a part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a nuclear power and nobody noticed. This may be the largest mistake made by this administration and "largest mistake" is a pretty high bar.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
From an imaginary Newsweek article from an alternative universe
In the closing months of President Gore's second term, it is time to look back on the legacy he will leave behind. Historians polled by this magazine agree that the Gore presidency will be remembered favorably, but there were missed opportunities, as well. Compared to recent presidents, he will be remembered as more effective than Clinton, if only because his administration was not distracted by scandals and the legal wrangling that accompanied them, but less effective in achieving his goals than Reagan, a more effective communicator whose presidency coincided with the beginning of the current era of Republican dominance in Congress. He was nevertheless an effective leader in the days following the 9-11 attacks, gathering international support and reaching across party lines to rebuild New York and spearhead the international response.
His presidency began, of course, in controversy. When the Florida vote was inconclusive and the Floridas courts ordered a recount that some feared might make the election's outcome unclear for months, Republican candidate George Bush petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and stop the recount and accept the results as certified by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, declined to stop the recount but accepted the case for review. The Supreme Court agreed (7-2) that counting votes in different counties by different standards violated the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution, but held 5-4 that Florida's statutory deadline require that the recount of a Federal election be concluded by a specific date. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote in both 5-4 decisions, and court insiders say he appeared undecided as deliberations began. The decision returned the election to the Florida Elections Commission, which had been continuing its recount as the legal arguments proceeded and whch completed its hand count within a week of oral argument and well before the Electoral College's deadline of December 24. The result was late, but the Constitutional crisis was averted.
Once in office, Gore was known for policies that were methodical more than they were charismatic, but his administration was largely free of the scandals and ethical violations that had plagues several prior administrations.
On the domestic front, President Gore's continuation of economic policies that date back to the Clinton era have resulted in consistently balanced budgets despite the ongoing military presence in Afghanistan. Budget surpluses have been used to shore up the Social Security system, which as recently as 1998 was considered dangerously underfinanced. Budget surpluses have also led to a strong dollar, which remains the world's primary currency and which attracts investors from around the world. The recent drop in housing prices was short and the economy's recovery from what some feared might become a recession are the result of Gore's balanced budget and strong economy. The president's vetoes of Republican bills that would have deregulated the energy markets, reduced federal oversight of lending institutions, and relaxed auditing standards for large corporations were widely criticized in Congress, but have probably contributed to the long-term stability and growth of our economy. His commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions have led to strict standards, but it will be years until we see whether the targets can be met, and if so, if they slow global warming, but his emphasis on conservation and alternative energy technology has already paid dividends in hydrogen fuel cells, increased efficiency and reduced costs of photo-voltaic generators, wind-generated electricity, and reliable hybrids and electric-only vehicles, to name just a few.
Internationally, Gore managed to maintain the core of the international coalition that has brought almost 50,000 troops to Afghanistan, only 25,000 of which are American. The international community came to America's aid in the days following 9-11, and while many criticized the troop surge to 60,000 in 2004, it is clear that increased troop levels led, albeit indirectly, to the capture of Osama bin Laden. Gore's many Republican critics decried his stubborn insistence that all military actions be under the aegis of the U.N. and, to a lesser extent, NATO, but without the U.N. resolution allowing regional military action, the U.S. alone would probably not have been able to undertake the large-scale operations that that brought Coalition control to the Hindu Kush mountains in Pakistan and Tajikistan. As commander of NATO forces on both sides of the Durand Line, General Gates was able to bring stability not just to Afghanistan, but to the entire region. Similarly, Congressional Republicans have frequently called for unilateral action against Iraq, arguing that Saddam Hussein is almost certainly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. U.N. investigator Hans Blick has consistently said that there is no evidence of any manufacture or acquisition of WMD by Iraq, so the U.N has thus far refused to act. Whether the Administration or the unilateralists are right may be learned only if Iraq attacks the U.S., or a neighbor, or its own population, as it did to the Kurds in 1988.
Gore's opponent in 2000, former Texas Governor George Bush, is now commissioner of Major League Baseball and has his hands full with the steroid scandal. His opponent in 2004, John McCain, is in a close presidential race with Senator Hillary Clinton. Her primary campaign has been able to unify the Democrats behind her candidacy despite strong early results for Vice President Lieberman and newcomer Barack Obama, but neither candidate seemed to be able to find an issue that would give their candidacies traction. Clinton's promise to stay the course appears to be resonating well with voters. With the continued strength of the American economy and relative stability in the Middle East oil prices remain low, and the New York round of accords that modified the Kyoto Treaty, initiated and championed by President Gore, give strong incentives to China and India to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. True, two goals announced by Gore at the beginning of his presidency remain un-met: the administration has been unable to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine, and it is unclear that our aggressive reductions in greenhouse gases can be met. The administration's attempts to increase the number of acres in the U.S. designated as wilderness, strengthen the Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act were impossible to achieve with an uncooperative Congress, but overall, the Gore administration has been one that history will judge a success. He has not been our most charismatic president, but his policies led to stability and prosperity at home and abroad.
His presidency began, of course, in controversy. When the Florida vote was inconclusive and the Floridas courts ordered a recount that some feared might make the election's outcome unclear for months, Republican candidate George Bush petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and stop the recount and accept the results as certified by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, declined to stop the recount but accepted the case for review. The Supreme Court agreed (7-2) that counting votes in different counties by different standards violated the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution, but held 5-4 that Florida's statutory deadline require that the recount of a Federal election be concluded by a specific date. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote in both 5-4 decisions, and court insiders say he appeared undecided as deliberations began. The decision returned the election to the Florida Elections Commission, which had been continuing its recount as the legal arguments proceeded and whch completed its hand count within a week of oral argument and well before the Electoral College's deadline of December 24. The result was late, but the Constitutional crisis was averted.
Once in office, Gore was known for policies that were methodical more than they were charismatic, but his administration was largely free of the scandals and ethical violations that had plagues several prior administrations.
On the domestic front, President Gore's continuation of economic policies that date back to the Clinton era have resulted in consistently balanced budgets despite the ongoing military presence in Afghanistan. Budget surpluses have been used to shore up the Social Security system, which as recently as 1998 was considered dangerously underfinanced. Budget surpluses have also led to a strong dollar, which remains the world's primary currency and which attracts investors from around the world. The recent drop in housing prices was short and the economy's recovery from what some feared might become a recession are the result of Gore's balanced budget and strong economy. The president's vetoes of Republican bills that would have deregulated the energy markets, reduced federal oversight of lending institutions, and relaxed auditing standards for large corporations were widely criticized in Congress, but have probably contributed to the long-term stability and growth of our economy. His commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions have led to strict standards, but it will be years until we see whether the targets can be met, and if so, if they slow global warming, but his emphasis on conservation and alternative energy technology has already paid dividends in hydrogen fuel cells, increased efficiency and reduced costs of photo-voltaic generators, wind-generated electricity, and reliable hybrids and electric-only vehicles, to name just a few.
Internationally, Gore managed to maintain the core of the international coalition that has brought almost 50,000 troops to Afghanistan, only 25,000 of which are American. The international community came to America's aid in the days following 9-11, and while many criticized the troop surge to 60,000 in 2004, it is clear that increased troop levels led, albeit indirectly, to the capture of Osama bin Laden. Gore's many Republican critics decried his stubborn insistence that all military actions be under the aegis of the U.N. and, to a lesser extent, NATO, but without the U.N. resolution allowing regional military action, the U.S. alone would probably not have been able to undertake the large-scale operations that that brought Coalition control to the Hindu Kush mountains in Pakistan and Tajikistan. As commander of NATO forces on both sides of the Durand Line, General Gates was able to bring stability not just to Afghanistan, but to the entire region. Similarly, Congressional Republicans have frequently called for unilateral action against Iraq, arguing that Saddam Hussein is almost certainly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. U.N. investigator Hans Blick has consistently said that there is no evidence of any manufacture or acquisition of WMD by Iraq, so the U.N has thus far refused to act. Whether the Administration or the unilateralists are right may be learned only if Iraq attacks the U.S., or a neighbor, or its own population, as it did to the Kurds in 1988.
Gore's opponent in 2000, former Texas Governor George Bush, is now commissioner of Major League Baseball and has his hands full with the steroid scandal. His opponent in 2004, John McCain, is in a close presidential race with Senator Hillary Clinton. Her primary campaign has been able to unify the Democrats behind her candidacy despite strong early results for Vice President Lieberman and newcomer Barack Obama, but neither candidate seemed to be able to find an issue that would give their candidacies traction. Clinton's promise to stay the course appears to be resonating well with voters. With the continued strength of the American economy and relative stability in the Middle East oil prices remain low, and the New York round of accords that modified the Kyoto Treaty, initiated and championed by President Gore, give strong incentives to China and India to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. True, two goals announced by Gore at the beginning of his presidency remain un-met: the administration has been unable to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine, and it is unclear that our aggressive reductions in greenhouse gases can be met. The administration's attempts to increase the number of acres in the U.S. designated as wilderness, strengthen the Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act were impossible to achieve with an uncooperative Congress, but overall, the Gore administration has been one that history will judge a success. He has not been our most charismatic president, but his policies led to stability and prosperity at home and abroad.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Polarization? I guess that's one word for it
People (including me) have been speaking regretfully about the polarization of politics over the last few years. Liberals (like me) tend to lay a preponderance of the blame for this on the Republican party, which, during the first year of the second Bush administration, imagined that they had established a Republican majority in the United States, including both houses of Congress, that was destined to last a generation. Tom DeLay didn't need a single Democratic vote to get even the most complicated or controversial legislation passed, so no compromise was needed on any issue, and because all Republican House members were beholden to Tom, there was no deviation from the party line, even on the most divisive of issues. Republican leaders got so accustomed to getting their way that they forgot how to react when something didn't go their way. One example: when pitiful, brain-dead Terri Schiavo's husband elected to terminate life-support and let the poor woman die in peace, true believer Tom DeLay and pandering toady Bill Frist ram-rodded legislation through both houses of Congress that would have allowed a judge to intervene between Ms. Schiavo's family and her doctors to compel the doctors to continue life support. When both Florida state court judges and Federal court judges at trial and appellate levels refused to intervene in this extremely difficult decision-making process, DeLay had a temper tantrum in front of the television cameras, a melt-down of epic proportions in which he fumed about "activist judges." Activist judges? All judges of all political persuasion who had been asked to do so had declined to take any action at all. DeLay was the activist, and for a politician, losing your temper in front of the cameras is a bad sign. But the fact that he could get that legislation passed was an impressive display of legislative clout.
If DeLay's attempts to intervene in the Schiavo matter and his success at forcing an unenthusiastic legislature to take a stand on an issue for which it had no palate was a good example of how a powerful man can polarize the House of Representatives yet be successful in imposing his will despite opposition by enforcing party discipline, the last chapter also contained the seeds of the collapse of DeLay's career and of Republican dominance in Washington. Keeping Congress in line is one thing, and DeLay was good at it. Getting the individual Representatives re-elected is something else entirely, and the Schiavo mess demonstrated that DeLay had lost his moorings as a politician. The electorate was against his attempts to interfere in that regrettable mess by more than two to one (poll figures here) but he paid the electorate no heed.
There were other signs, too. In that same term no less sophisticated a politician than Trent Lott, senior senator from Mississippi and Majority Leader of the Senate, made the same kind of error--thinking that the only people who matter are people just like you. In Lott's case, the one that cost him his leadership position was a brief speech he gave at Republican Senator Strom Thurmond's hundredth birthday party. He said he and others like him had voted for Thurmond when he ran for president in 1948 and were proud of it, and that if Thurmond had won, our country could have avoided many of the problems we subsequently faced. Since Turmond ran as a Dixiecrat on a one-issue platform of maintaining segregation and the Jim Crow laws that institutionalized it, Lott's protests that he'd been misunderstood were difficult to credit.
Although Lott was smoother than DeLay, there were a lot of parallels between the two men. DeLay had been Majority Whip of the House before he became Speaker, as Lott had been Majority Whip in the Senate. Both were southern strong-arm enforcers who used divisive issues like abortion and gun control and gay rights to polarize the electorate, embrace the self-righteous, and encourage partisanship. Both treated dissent or disagreement as unpatriotic appeasement. Neither showed any inclination to reach across the aisle. Both were impervious to criticism and appeared invincible in 2004, but then both were gone by 2007, resigning in the midst of (in the case of DeLay) or one step ahead of (in the case of Lott) scandals involving money.
Yesterday there was a small indication that liberals (like me) who like to blame the Republican party and the current administration for Washington's current uncivil, polarized environment got some useful demonstrative evidence. In their minority status, and in the absence of enforcement-minded ideologues like DeLay and Lott, the Republicans can't even be civil to each other. Up until now, it's been liberals (like me) and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats (like me) that have been polarized. Now the polarization is between Republicans in the executive branch and Republicans in the legislative branch.
Yesterday when the administration's national intelligence director, Mike McConnell, brought new rules governing the interactions between intelligence agencies to the congressional oversight committee on intelligence, the Republicans on the committee all walked out in protest, about as uncivil a treatment for a high-level witness one can imagine. The rules had been drawn up, revised, adopted, and signed into law in secret, and McConnell showed up to brief the committee on the rules, which Congress clearly understood it could not affect in any way. "The president is making it impossible for Congress to do oversight of the intelligence community," said the senior Republican on the committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. "The only effective oversight that can be done is out of the executive branch. And this is the fox watching the chicken coop."
I know this isn't the point in our nation's history when our politicians are the most polarized and the least civil. In 1865 Sen. Charles Sumner, Republican of Massachusetts, gave a particularly pointed anti-slavery speech, and Rep. Preston Brooks, Democrat (like me) of South Carolina responded by beating him senseless with a cane in the Senate cloakroom. The issue of slavery polarized our nation like it would never be again. But even if things could be worse than they are today, there's another way to go about this, too. Politicians like Republican Everett Dirksen and Democrat Lyndon Johnson bargained and wheedled and compromised and worked things out, and had immense respect for each other. Tip O'Niell and Gerald Ford were friends. They listened to what each other had to say. They had drinks together. They told jokes. Somehow we've lost that in the last twenty years.
The presidential race is close and it's by no means certain who will win, but both candidates come from the relatively collegial confines of the Senate, both are experienced legislators who should understand the importance of consensus and compromise. Obama has consistently stressed the need for consensus and collaboration. One beef that Republicans voice about McCain is that he didn't always stand with his party on ideological issues, but chafing at Trent Lott's leadership is a hopeful sign of a less ideologically polarized era to come. McCain also got burned early in his career by taking campaign donations from Charles Keating, and from that point forward was very careful about whose money he took, a lesson that would have helped keep Republicans Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, and Ted Stevens in office, or at least out of jail, and avoid the shadow over Abramoff friends John Dolittle and Conrad Burns.
So. Whichever way this goes, we have a decent shot at increasing the level of civility and decreasing the polarization in Washington, and that would be welcome.
In the words of Beck, "Things are going to get better. I can feel it."
If DeLay's attempts to intervene in the Schiavo matter and his success at forcing an unenthusiastic legislature to take a stand on an issue for which it had no palate was a good example of how a powerful man can polarize the House of Representatives yet be successful in imposing his will despite opposition by enforcing party discipline, the last chapter also contained the seeds of the collapse of DeLay's career and of Republican dominance in Washington. Keeping Congress in line is one thing, and DeLay was good at it. Getting the individual Representatives re-elected is something else entirely, and the Schiavo mess demonstrated that DeLay had lost his moorings as a politician. The electorate was against his attempts to interfere in that regrettable mess by more than two to one (poll figures here) but he paid the electorate no heed.
There were other signs, too. In that same term no less sophisticated a politician than Trent Lott, senior senator from Mississippi and Majority Leader of the Senate, made the same kind of error--thinking that the only people who matter are people just like you. In Lott's case, the one that cost him his leadership position was a brief speech he gave at Republican Senator Strom Thurmond's hundredth birthday party. He said he and others like him had voted for Thurmond when he ran for president in 1948 and were proud of it, and that if Thurmond had won, our country could have avoided many of the problems we subsequently faced. Since Turmond ran as a Dixiecrat on a one-issue platform of maintaining segregation and the Jim Crow laws that institutionalized it, Lott's protests that he'd been misunderstood were difficult to credit.
Although Lott was smoother than DeLay, there were a lot of parallels between the two men. DeLay had been Majority Whip of the House before he became Speaker, as Lott had been Majority Whip in the Senate. Both were southern strong-arm enforcers who used divisive issues like abortion and gun control and gay rights to polarize the electorate, embrace the self-righteous, and encourage partisanship. Both treated dissent or disagreement as unpatriotic appeasement. Neither showed any inclination to reach across the aisle. Both were impervious to criticism and appeared invincible in 2004, but then both were gone by 2007, resigning in the midst of (in the case of DeLay) or one step ahead of (in the case of Lott) scandals involving money.
Yesterday there was a small indication that liberals (like me) who like to blame the Republican party and the current administration for Washington's current uncivil, polarized environment got some useful demonstrative evidence. In their minority status, and in the absence of enforcement-minded ideologues like DeLay and Lott, the Republicans can't even be civil to each other. Up until now, it's been liberals (like me) and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats (like me) that have been polarized. Now the polarization is between Republicans in the executive branch and Republicans in the legislative branch.
Yesterday when the administration's national intelligence director, Mike McConnell, brought new rules governing the interactions between intelligence agencies to the congressional oversight committee on intelligence, the Republicans on the committee all walked out in protest, about as uncivil a treatment for a high-level witness one can imagine. The rules had been drawn up, revised, adopted, and signed into law in secret, and McConnell showed up to brief the committee on the rules, which Congress clearly understood it could not affect in any way. "The president is making it impossible for Congress to do oversight of the intelligence community," said the senior Republican on the committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. "The only effective oversight that can be done is out of the executive branch. And this is the fox watching the chicken coop."
I know this isn't the point in our nation's history when our politicians are the most polarized and the least civil. In 1865 Sen. Charles Sumner, Republican of Massachusetts, gave a particularly pointed anti-slavery speech, and Rep. Preston Brooks, Democrat (like me) of South Carolina responded by beating him senseless with a cane in the Senate cloakroom. The issue of slavery polarized our nation like it would never be again. But even if things could be worse than they are today, there's another way to go about this, too. Politicians like Republican Everett Dirksen and Democrat Lyndon Johnson bargained and wheedled and compromised and worked things out, and had immense respect for each other. Tip O'Niell and Gerald Ford were friends. They listened to what each other had to say. They had drinks together. They told jokes. Somehow we've lost that in the last twenty years.
The presidential race is close and it's by no means certain who will win, but both candidates come from the relatively collegial confines of the Senate, both are experienced legislators who should understand the importance of consensus and compromise. Obama has consistently stressed the need for consensus and collaboration. One beef that Republicans voice about McCain is that he didn't always stand with his party on ideological issues, but chafing at Trent Lott's leadership is a hopeful sign of a less ideologically polarized era to come. McCain also got burned early in his career by taking campaign donations from Charles Keating, and from that point forward was very careful about whose money he took, a lesson that would have helped keep Republicans Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, and Ted Stevens in office, or at least out of jail, and avoid the shadow over Abramoff friends John Dolittle and Conrad Burns.
So. Whichever way this goes, we have a decent shot at increasing the level of civility and decreasing the polarization in Washington, and that would be welcome.
In the words of Beck, "Things are going to get better. I can feel it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
