Hysterical. Clever, clever Obama. Judd Gregg is a Republican Senator from New Hampshire. The person who would appoint his successor is John Lynch, the Democratic governor.
This is where we see just how "bareknuckle" Obama is. If he wanted, he could use this opportunity to create a Democratic supermajority in the senate and ram through his entire agenda, Parliament-style, Republicans be damned. Or, he could hold out this possibility to Mitch McConnell to extort something big out of the GOP, say a big climate change package or a well-functioning government health insurance program.
My suspicion is that Obama will do neither of these and pass up a golden opportunity for the sake of comity with Senate Republicans, as much as I hate to say it. He may even publicly disavow such a hardball move as a gesture of good faith. I think Obama's a true believer when he talks about bipartisanship. Let's hope his faith in the better angels of the GOP is justified.
The main argument I've heard against the possibility of this happening is the question of Gregg's motivation to go along with something that forever tarnish his name in his own political party. Well, here's his incentive: Gregg's up for re-election in 2010 and under 50% against Democrat Paul Hodes in rapidly bluing New Hampshire. Interesting fact about the 50% mark: those senators who polled above 50% during the year of their re-election in every poll all won their re-elections. Among the incumbents who had even one poll in that entire year show them under the magic 50% mark, fully half lost their elections. And let's not forget that he'll be running in New Hampshire, which booted the other Republican senator from office in November, both of its Republican congressmen, 7 of state senators (out of a total senate of 24), and 102 state representatives (out of a total assembly of 400) in 2006, and just re-elected its Democratic governor with 74% of the vote.
According to the odds, there's a 50/50 chance that Judd Gregg will not be senator in 2011 no matter what he does. Looks like plenty of incentive to me. I imagine that, if this coup doesn't happen, it will have been aborted by the president, not the senior senator from New Hampshire.
Showing posts with label partisanship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partisanship. Show all posts
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 03, 2008
a BIG reason for marijuana legalization
I think what many peeps in the blogosphere aren't really getting is that many, many people in this country are looking for "post-partisan" figures like Obama not because they think all partisanship is bad (though they may couch their arguments to sound like that) but because they think it's gone too far.
They've spent the last several years listening to politicians and pundits escalate their partisan rhetoric to the point of absurdity, now calling each other "traitors" and "Satanic" and "objectively pro-terrorist" and "Nazi" and "Stalinist" (sometimes applying all of them to the same person) on increasingly politicized TV News networks and radio stations. They just saw a Christmas commercial from one particular candidate-- as part of a bevy of political Christmas ads ostensibly trying to tone down the partisanship for the holiday season, no less-- featuring a Santa Claus that hates the Democratic presidential candidates. Speaking for myself, it was probably the creepiest campaign commercial I've ever seen.
And that's all before they even get on the internet.
They've noticed conversations with friends and family on politics becoming increasingly uncomfortable and emotionally charged, and may have even inadvertently damaged some of their relationships.
They're watching Congress and the president marshaling ever more arcane practices and questionable logic to try to force each other's hand on legislation because compromise in the Senate has become virtually impossible (in the Senate!), thanks largely to a record-setting rate of filibuster by Senate Republican leadership, who have openly admitted their intention of paralyzing the government for as long as possible and blaming it on the Democrats. Thus our problems go untreated and continue to fester, ultimately becoming more fodder for the spin war, yet no steps are taken to solve them (in fact, more than a few people think Democrats don't particularly want to fix any problems early because that would result in less fodder).
Granted, I think this view is insufficiently critical of the GOP, who are in my opinion almost entirely to blame for the gridlock. Democrats haven't fought as hard as they perhaps could by taking issues to the Supreme Court, refusing funding for the war, or sending the congressional Sargeant-at-arms to arrest Bush Administration members guilty of contempt of Congress, for instance, but I can at least sympathize with the desire not to set up a constitutional crisis.
I can also sympathize with the desire to see the spirit of compromise restored to Washington, even though I also understand that "people disagree about stuff" and that we don't all want the same things and that's ok. The problem is, right now the legislative sabotage has gotten so pervasive that nobody's getting anything done, and the rhetoric on the radio and TV and online has gotten so heated that, on both sides, discussion of the political opposition and other adversaries often becomes dehumanizing and even eliminationist.
For many people, I suspect, toning that down is about as high a priority as health care or Iraq, which may partially explain why Barack Obama, he of the "One America" 2004 speech, is making so much headway among such stiff competition, and for that matter why he's finding himself with so much support among non-Democrats.
They've spent the last several years listening to politicians and pundits escalate their partisan rhetoric to the point of absurdity, now calling each other "traitors" and "Satanic" and "objectively pro-terrorist" and "Nazi" and "Stalinist" (sometimes applying all of them to the same person) on increasingly politicized TV News networks and radio stations. They just saw a Christmas commercial from one particular candidate-- as part of a bevy of political Christmas ads ostensibly trying to tone down the partisanship for the holiday season, no less-- featuring a Santa Claus that hates the Democratic presidential candidates. Speaking for myself, it was probably the creepiest campaign commercial I've ever seen.
And that's all before they even get on the internet.
They've noticed conversations with friends and family on politics becoming increasingly uncomfortable and emotionally charged, and may have even inadvertently damaged some of their relationships.
They're watching Congress and the president marshaling ever more arcane practices and questionable logic to try to force each other's hand on legislation because compromise in the Senate has become virtually impossible (in the Senate!), thanks largely to a record-setting rate of filibuster by Senate Republican leadership, who have openly admitted their intention of paralyzing the government for as long as possible and blaming it on the Democrats. Thus our problems go untreated and continue to fester, ultimately becoming more fodder for the spin war, yet no steps are taken to solve them (in fact, more than a few people think Democrats don't particularly want to fix any problems early because that would result in less fodder).
Granted, I think this view is insufficiently critical of the GOP, who are in my opinion almost entirely to blame for the gridlock. Democrats haven't fought as hard as they perhaps could by taking issues to the Supreme Court, refusing funding for the war, or sending the congressional Sargeant-at-arms to arrest Bush Administration members guilty of contempt of Congress, for instance, but I can at least sympathize with the desire not to set up a constitutional crisis.
I can also sympathize with the desire to see the spirit of compromise restored to Washington, even though I also understand that "people disagree about stuff" and that we don't all want the same things and that's ok. The problem is, right now the legislative sabotage has gotten so pervasive that nobody's getting anything done, and the rhetoric on the radio and TV and online has gotten so heated that, on both sides, discussion of the political opposition and other adversaries often becomes dehumanizing and even eliminationist.
For many people, I suspect, toning that down is about as high a priority as health care or Iraq, which may partially explain why Barack Obama, he of the "One America" 2004 speech, is making so much headway among such stiff competition, and for that matter why he's finding himself with so much support among non-Democrats.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
when all you've got is a Hammer...
I just listened to the first part of the Diane Rehm show, where I had the pleasure of hearing Newt f*^king Gingrich lecture today's politicians on, yes, being too partisan. Then, in his answer to the very first caller's question, he claimed that the only answer liberals have to global warming was "to raise taxes and give more power to trial lawyers."
That was right after he totally evaded the first emailed question about his own dubious role in the country's polarization with the Clinton impeachment.
But damn those politicians and their partisan soundbytes!
UPDATE 12:06PM: My landlady tells me that Gingrich eventually skipped out on Diane only 40 minutes into the show, which royally pissed her off, as he had promised her the whole hour, so she had no guest for the last 20 minutes (apparently, she spent it ranting about Gingrich's performance).
Gingrich is perhaps the worst of these hyperpartisan politicians (Tom Delay being second) when it comes to practicing oppositional politics. He doesn't care about actually fixing anything. Rather, his entire being is geared toward soundbytes and framing and political maneuvering. Everything, and I mean everything, that comes out of Gingrich's mouth has one purpose: to disparage and discredit his opponents. There are no moments of candor with him; he's always got one hand on his dagger and one eye on the backs of Democrats, liberals, and intellectuals.
This is what, to me at least, is emblematic of current Republicanism: defeating Democrats and marginalizing liberals is the point of every word and every action. You don't see this with liberals, or even most major Democrats (with perhaps the exception of Rahm Emmanuel). When Al Gore is talking about climate change or John Edwards about poverty, you don't get the sense that they've got Republicans or conservatives in the back of their mind, and they hardly ever come up.
Republicans, however, just won't STFU about Democrats and liberals and how stupid and evil and weak and traitorous and fascist they are, and Gingrich is one of the main reasons for this. He showed them a way of winning that was no holds barred, that had no vision, no answers, no end other than winning, and he molded the GOP to work like him. It's all they know, and that probably goes a long way to describing just why they've been so singularly ineffectual administrators and lawmakers. They can cut taxes, they can start wars, they can stage PR stunts, and they can denigrate liberals, but that's all they've got. That's the entire GOP playbook: 4 moves designed and poll-tested to win elections. They're not so great at maintaining healthy economies or keeping government running smoothly or answering societal problems or stopping impending environmental catastrophies, but for a decade and a half the GOP has been winning by pretending everything is a nail and they put all their other tools in hock when Gingrich proved to them that responsibility and openness are unnecessary in government. Now, of course, they're reaping what Gingrich and Armey and Delay sowed, as these tried-and-true techniques are diminishing in their returns. Authoritarian cultism, propaganda, and corruption can only hide one's incompetence for so long.
That was right after he totally evaded the first emailed question about his own dubious role in the country's polarization with the Clinton impeachment.
But damn those politicians and their partisan soundbytes!
UPDATE 12:06PM: My landlady tells me that Gingrich eventually skipped out on Diane only 40 minutes into the show, which royally pissed her off, as he had promised her the whole hour, so she had no guest for the last 20 minutes (apparently, she spent it ranting about Gingrich's performance).
Gingrich is perhaps the worst of these hyperpartisan politicians (Tom Delay being second) when it comes to practicing oppositional politics. He doesn't care about actually fixing anything. Rather, his entire being is geared toward soundbytes and framing and political maneuvering. Everything, and I mean everything, that comes out of Gingrich's mouth has one purpose: to disparage and discredit his opponents. There are no moments of candor with him; he's always got one hand on his dagger and one eye on the backs of Democrats, liberals, and intellectuals.
This is what, to me at least, is emblematic of current Republicanism: defeating Democrats and marginalizing liberals is the point of every word and every action. You don't see this with liberals, or even most major Democrats (with perhaps the exception of Rahm Emmanuel). When Al Gore is talking about climate change or John Edwards about poverty, you don't get the sense that they've got Republicans or conservatives in the back of their mind, and they hardly ever come up.
Republicans, however, just won't STFU about Democrats and liberals and how stupid and evil and weak and traitorous and fascist they are, and Gingrich is one of the main reasons for this. He showed them a way of winning that was no holds barred, that had no vision, no answers, no end other than winning, and he molded the GOP to work like him. It's all they know, and that probably goes a long way to describing just why they've been so singularly ineffectual administrators and lawmakers. They can cut taxes, they can start wars, they can stage PR stunts, and they can denigrate liberals, but that's all they've got. That's the entire GOP playbook: 4 moves designed and poll-tested to win elections. They're not so great at maintaining healthy economies or keeping government running smoothly or answering societal problems or stopping impending environmental catastrophies, but for a decade and a half the GOP has been winning by pretending everything is a nail and they put all their other tools in hock when Gingrich proved to them that responsibility and openness are unnecessary in government. Now, of course, they're reaping what Gingrich and Armey and Delay sowed, as these tried-and-true techniques are diminishing in their returns. Authoritarian cultism, propaganda, and corruption can only hide one's incompetence for so long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)