Summers Will Be Gone

One upbeat piece of news: Lawrence Summers will be leaving the White House as economic policy advisor to Obama.   Good!!!!!!!!!!!   As someone who bears a great deal of the blame for the run-up to the Great Recession by his support for deregulation in the 90's and his support for the Wall Street shenanigans, Summers should never have been appointed by Obama in the first place.  It doesn't really matter now, since Congress is lost to the Democrats, but it still feels GOOD.

A Recipe for Disaster

Michael Gerson reports how the independent voters across the mid-northern states like Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania have turned against Obama and toward the Republicans:

The Quinnipiac poll produced the single-most startling figure of the midterm election so far: 65 percent of Ohio's likely independent voters now disapprove of Obama's job performance -- a 2 to 1 rejection. Obama has lost the center of the electorate in the center of America.

High deficits. Continued unemployment at 10 percent. A stimulus package that not only didn't work, it didn't work and spent too much."

At the same time that Democrats have massively disappointed Ohio independents, they have provoked Republican intensity. In one poll, 75 percent of Ohio Republicans described themselves as "certain" to vote, compared with 52 percent of Democrats.

Portman also argues that the issues are breaking against Democrats, especially health care. "I've done 70 plant tours," he told me. "It is the first issue people bring up to me. They know their premiums are going up. New mandates and new costs are creating uncertainty.

Ohio, recently the symbol of Democratic realignment, has become the graveyard of Democratic campaign themes. Portman -- who was President George W. Bush's trade representative and budget director -- was thought vulnerable to attacks on the Bush era. But this Democratic argument appealed mainly to the already converted. And it was complicated by a development some did not expect. A recent poll found that Ohio voters, by a 50-42 margin, would rather have Bush in the White House than Obama.

With the way things are going, who knows how big the rout is going to be in November?  All I can imagine next January is pretty much complete stalemate in economic and domestic issues...which then doesn't bode well for the next two years. 

Will someone in the Democratic Party step forward to challenge Obama for the nomination?  I think it could happen, which would then divide the party and make it even more enfeebled.

It looks more and more to me like Obama is going to be a one-term President.  He had a chance to do some big things, but he chose the pragmatic centrist road, which led pretty much nowhere.  (I would argue that the health care reform, while an incremental step in the right direction, doesn't do anything to get costs under control, as pointed out by Dr. Arnold Relman in the latest New York Review of Books.)  The Republicans refused to cooperate in anyway.  And then he changed from the inspirational orator that won him the election, into the professorial, unemotional, and out-of-touch President, who doesn't inspire hardly anyone.

And if Republicans are as 'unfit to govern' as Richard Cohen mentions in the previous post, we're in for a very long spell of totally ineffective government, unable to set forth reasonable short-term, let alone long-term policies.  This sounds like a recipe for national disaster, no matter who the President is.  I truly fear for our country.

O'Donnell and the GOP

Richard Cohen of the WaPo tells it straight...the Republican Party has become unfit to govern:

Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party candidate from lil' ol' Delaware, confesses to have once "dabbled into witchcraft" -- a fittingly ungrammatical revelation that not only was to be expected but explains what has happened to the Republican Party. Someone -- possibly you know who -- has cast a spell on it, and now it has a candidate whose main contribution to political thought or, indeed, the plight of the poor is to have railed against masturbation, which she likened to adultery. Only a spell can explain such thinking.

Only a spell also can explain how Newt Gingrich, possibly a presidential candidate, can attribute the politics of Barack Obama to "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior." Obama allegedly picked up this behavior from his father, whom he knew only fleetingly, which is to say almost not at all, and who has long been dead. This, as Gingrich and others under the spell can tell you, is proof of the demonic power that can come out of the grave, enter the White House (look, the gate-crashing Salahis did it) and pervade the very body and mind of the commander in chief. It's enough to give you the willies.

Similarly, only a spell can explain why much of the Republican Party insists on calling Obama a socialist. To apply this label to the very man who saved Big Finance, who rescued Goldman Sachs and the rest of the boys, who gave a Heimlich to the barely breathing banks, can only be explained by witchcraft or voodoo or something like that. It has caused the GOP to lose its mind. Obama did something similar to the American auto industry, saving it from itself. He did not let it fail or nationalize it, as a socialist would have done, but pumped cash into it so that -- this is me speaking -- it can fail later on.

O'Donnell is where the GOP has been heading for some time. The party's leaders have steadfastly refused to take a stand against any idiocy, even suggesting they agree that Obama might not be a Christian. Their intellectuals have supported and advanced the know-nothingness of Sarah Palin. Nothing to them is beyond the pale. This party is not fit to govern.

So now it has a candidate in Delaware who truly is a career politician. She seems to have no means of support except campaign funds. She supposedly lives in her headquarters, although this is somewhat in dispute. Whatever the case, she has no job and no views worth a moment's consideration. (She even appalls Karl Rove.) She's not likely to win, but the way things are going this year, she just might. People are angry. People are mad. The night is dark.

It May Be Petraeus in 2012, with Palin as the Ice Breaker for Him

Investigative journalist Webster Tarplay lays out a plausible scenario as to why it is General David Petraeus who could be drafted by the Republicans as their Presidential Candidate in 2012.  I wrote about this possibility last February here:

Islam: A Summing Up

[To see the entire series on Islam, click here]

In this post, I want to provide a summary of some of the major points I've made in the previous ten posts on Islam, especially as compared to Judaism and Christianity.

• Islam sees itself as the completion of Judaism and Christianity, which Islam views as based in genuine revelations of God that were subsequently corrupted. It views Judaism and Christianity with a mixture of respect and contempt.

• All three religions developed over time complex historical and literary traditions that give them strength, stability, and identity.

• The three religions all trace themselves back to Abraham, and this is a major point of coherence.

• Islam agrees with Judaism and Christianity that the same God created the world, which displays his glory and gives sufficient evidence for God’s existence, power, and sovereignty.

• All three religions believe in the grace of God, though they see it very differently. For Judaism, God’s grace was given in the gift of creation, covenant of election, liberation from slavery in Egypt, the Promised land, and Torah. For Christians, God’s grace comes primarily through Jesus’ death and resurrection, and the salvation granted through these events. For Muslims, God’s grace is primarily through the gifts of creation, as well as the guidance through the prophets and especially Muhammad, the gift of umma, and finally the promise of heaven for those who are good and faithful servants of Allah.

• Islam reveres the Hebrew figures of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, and Jonah as great, godly leaders and prophets, thus aligning itself in a major way with the Jewish tradition.

• Islam reveres Jesus as a Jewish prophet and messenger of God. It refused, however, to look upon Jesus as anything but fully human. This puts Islam at major odds with Christianity, which came to see Jesus as fully God and fully human.

• Islam (as well as Judaism) rejects the Christian doctrines of Incarnation, Atonement, and Trinity. Muslims do not even believe that Jesus died on the cross, whereas Jews believe he died but that it proved that he wasn’t the Messiah. Only Christians believe that Jesus’ death on the cross has redemptive power and was the way that he was victorious over sin and death. Only Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Surprisingly, Muslims believe that Jesus will return again some day to do battle with the Anti-Christ.

• All three religions believe in the (Holy) Spirit in some way, as God’s means of inspiring his prophets, and in Judaism and Christianity especially, as God’s means of being present with us now.

• All three religions believe in the existence of angels as God’s messengers.

• Traditional Christianity and Islam believe strongly in the existence and power of Satan, whereas Judaism has always been less inclined to this belief.

• All three Western religions, in their traditional form, accept the notion of a Day of Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. Many modern Christians and Jews question these doctrines however. The Koran stresses much more than the other two scriptures the importance of heaven/hell as eternal reward/punishment for human behavior. The Koran’s stress on the Day of Judgment has strong resonance with fundamentalist Christianity and its reading of the book of Revelation.

• Jews, Christians Muslims all share a strong moral perspective. Jews and Muslims center their morality on a version of the Ten Commandments. Christians believe that the Ten Commandments are best summarized in the Law of Love, love for God and neighbor. All three religions agree that it is important to help the poor and needy as a religious duty.

• With regards to war, Islam is ready to engage in war in defense of Islam. The Israelites also readily went to war in the Old Testament, but being a small nation, and after 70 AD not a nation at all in any real sense, the Jews didn’t have much opportunity to go to war until the founding of Israel in 1948. Since then they have readily gone to war to defend (and expand) their nation. Christianity, on the other hand, was originally pacifist, because of Jesus’ teachings and life. It opposed war for about 3 centuries, after which it officially believed in ‘just war’ (though few if any actual wars have ever been declared unjust).

• Each of the three religions has its fundamentalist expression, which tends to be intolerant of the other traditions. Each has its ‘liberal’ expression which leans towards toleration and trying to find the commonalities, especially those which also accommodate modern cultural and scientific knowledge. And then there is everyone who hugs the center of their traditions, often confused and unsure of what to think yet continuing to believe and practice their religious traditions.

• Orthodox Jews and Muslims do not eat pork. Christians, especially those in North Carolina, love pork!

Shalom/Salam/Eirene/Pax/Peace.

Palin Comes In Fifth in Straw Poll at Conservative Gathering

It seems that Palin may be getting a little ahead of herself (and we along with her).  At the conservative Value Voters Summit being held in D.C., a presidential 'straw poll' was conducted, with a most interesting result:

About 723 out of more than 2,000 registered attendees cast ballots Saturday at the annual Values Voter Summit. [Congressman Mike] Pence was the top choice for president with 24 percent of the vote.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, received 22 percent, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Palin.

Palin was given the honors for vice president. She came in second behind Pence, who also topped that category.

Not-Ready-For-Primetime Politicians

Here it is, six weeks or so out from the election, and the new Republican Senatorial candidate from Delaware, Christine O'Donnell, declined to go on the Sunday news shows.  Ready to be elected, huh Christie, but not ready to face the national media?  (To be fair, Palin has declined them as well, except for her good friends and co-Tea Partyers at 'fair and balanced' Fox News.)

So what's behind the pretty smiles and beautiful hair, the geniality and folksiness, the 'you betcha!'s of Sarah Palin and her 'Mamma Grizzlies', as she calls them?  What political inclinations and policies would they actually seek to implement were they to win national office?  (It doesn't look like we're going to find out by them actually telling us!)

My guess is that they would try to take the country in the same direction that we have gone since 1981, which is towards a 'conservatism' that includes three major elements: free-market economics, a hawkish foreign policy, and a Christian fundamentalist cultural moral code.

 

Doesn't that sound like what you know about Sarah Palin and Christie O'Donnell?  A flag-waving all-out support for our wars abroad, a move to privatize and deregulate every part of the economy (and to correspondingly shrink any government involvement in the economy), and a strong effort to stop abortion, gay marriage, and other cultural sins that offend fundamentalist Christians so much. 

Yet it is my contention that economic and foreign policy conservatism, such as that (tacitly) championed by Sarah Palin, has actually been the normative American  policy for the last 30 years, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, and that it is the accumulated three decades of conservative practice that has brought America to its knees.

Do people not understand that the stock-market and housing crash of 2008, the Great Recession with its unemployment and housing chaos in which we're embroiled, and our enormous trade deficits abroad, all stem from the basically free-market economic policies of the last 30 years?  They certainly weren't caused by the centrist Obama who wasn't even elected yet when the crash occurred, yet many Tea Partyers are acting as if he's to blame.  No, it was the three decades of his conservative predecessors, who brought us to this point (and I include Clinton in that mix, with his Democratic version of free-market economics, called neo-liberalism).  Former conservatives who recognize this and who have turned from their old ways include Paul Craig Roberts, Bruce Bartlett, Kevin Phillips, and David Stockman.

Sticking with economics, what is it that a President Palin would do to solve the economic mess that we have been left with?    From all I can tell, she would continue the free-market economic policies of the past 30 years that have literally crippled us as a nation.

Yet, on the other hand, we really don't know what Palin et al would do.  Can anyone remember any new policy that Palin or O'Donnell have actually proposed to begin to address our huge economic problems and the national decline that so many of us are seeing both as a present and future reality?  I can't think of one.  It's all just a blank slate, just 'twitter' messages to the faithful, a diet of nothing but cute quips, laced with shrill sarcasm and ridicule for the current administration as they try to clean up the mess left to them. 

(Oh, wait, I do remember one policy: 'drill, baby, drill'!  Just ask the people on the Gulf Coast how that one has played out.)

Quoting Tolkien and C.S. Lewis as Christie O'Donnell has been doing so much recently, as wonderful as these two British Christian fantasy authors are, is not going to solve our domestic economic problems.  (And I say that with the greatest of admiration for Lewis and Tolkien, so much so that I visited The Eagle and Child Pub in Oxford in 2002, where the Inklings would meet to talk and read their novels over a pint and a pipe). 

What makes anyone believe that people like Palin and O'Donnell, who are completely bereft of national governing experience, have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to offer the American people by way of political leadership?  These two, and the others like them (eg Sharron Angle of Nevada) are the 'not-ready-for-primetime' politicians.

Except for waving and smiling and winking, they really don't know what they're doing, they can't stand up to the big boys (and girls) of the national media, and they don't not have the brains, the character, or the necessary experience for high national political office.  And the same goes for most of the Tea Party candidates that are showing up these days....they just don't cut it.

I'm Sorry for Those who Equate Muslims with Terrorists

Nicholas Kristof apologizes for his extremists:

Many Americans have suggested that more moderate Muslims should stand up to extremists, speak out for tolerance, and apologize for sins committed by their brethren.

That’s reasonable advice, and as a moderate myself, I’m going to take it. (Throat clearing.) I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you. The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you. Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs.

I apologize to Muslims for another reason. This isn’t about them, but about us. I want to defend Muslims from intolerance, but I also want to defend America against extremists engineering a spasm of religious hatred.

Radicals tend to empower radicals, creating a gulf of mutual misunderstanding and anger. Many Americans believe that Osama bin Laden is representative of Muslims, and many Afghans believe that the Rev. Terry Jones (who talked about burning Korans) is representative of Christians.

Many Americans honestly believe that Muslims are prone to violence, but humans are too complicated and diverse to lump into groups that we form invidious conclusions about. We’ve mostly learned that about blacks, Jews and other groups that suffered historic discrimination, but it’s still O.K. to make sweeping statements about “Muslims” as an undifferentiated mass.

I join him in this apology.

Sarah's the One

It's now official:

Sarah Palin tends to shy away from questions regarding her presidential ambitions, but not on Friday, when she told Fox News that given some vague preconditions, she'd be willing to "give it a shot" in 2012.

In Des Moines, Iowa, for the annual Reagan Dinner fundraiser -- a perennial destination for Republican presidential hopefuls -- the ex-governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee said she'd be "willing" to go head to head with President Barack Obama if voters think she's "the one."

"If the American people were to be ready for someone who is willing to shake it up, and willing to get back to time-tested truths, and help lead our country towards a more prosperous and safe future and if they happen to think I was the one, if it were best for my family and for our country, of course I would give it a shot," Palin said. "But I'm not saying that it's me. I know I can certainly make a difference without having a title. I'm having a good time doing exactly that right now."

The Disaster of Tea Party Thinking

Andrew Sullivan points to the big fallacy of the Tea Party argument about fiscal responsibility: why weren't they upset when George W. Bush and his Republican administration was ballooning the deficit and national debt with his multiple wars and budget-busting tax cuts?

I welcome the belated right-wing opposition to out-of-control government spending. But the one thing you have to note about tea-party fervor is that none of it existed when they had real leverage over a Republican president, who spent us into bankruptcy. That tells you something. And if you think a party led by Palin will not embrace every neocon crusade or Christianist social policy, you're dreaming.

The Tea Partyers are simply not believable when it comes to fiscal matters. They have no credible proposal to balance the budget and bring down the awful deficits that face us. They won't increase budget revenue with tax increases, they won't cut our bloated defense spending or end the wars we're in, they want Obama to keep his hands off 'their' Medicare, and so on. Do they really think that a balanced budget is going to be accomplished by cutting the Department of Education, Food Stamps, and the National Parks? 

Furthermore, what do they plan to do to bring back manufacturing to the United States, which is behind a lot of our current economic woes?  What is their plan to staunch the flow of billions of oil dollars to the Saudi Arabias of the world, or the billions of import dollars to the Chinas of this world, that is putting such pressure on the value of the dollar?  Understandably, they avoid all the hard economic thinking and instead resort to taking potshots at Obama and Pelosi, and pursue the kind of magical thinking that believes that we can return to Oz by simple clicking the heels of our ruby red slippers.

The Tea Party thinking in general, from all I've heard, is hyper-partisan (ie Republican), unrealistic, simplistic, emotional bordering on hysterical, overly personalistic, nativistic, jingoistic, absolutistic, and when it comes to President Obama, simply slanderous and completely absurd (Obama as Muslim, Socialist, Foreigner).  Tea Partyers seem to want someone in office "just like me" (I heard that with regard to O'Donnell, that it was fine that she had had her home foreclosed on and she hadn't paid her college tuition bills, because she was just like the rest of us!  Oh, great.)

Tea Party thinking (or the lack thereof) is a recipe for sheer national and even global disaster.  If you think it's bad now, if you thought right-wingers George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were a disaster, just wait till the likes of Palin, O'Donnell, Angle and their ilk come to power.  (And yes, it is possible, we almost had Palin as our Vice-President two years ago, thanks to John McCain.)  That's right, just try and imagine Sarah Palin with her finger on the nuclear button, being confronted by a crisis with China or North Korea or Russia or Iran.  I'm sorry, pretty Sarah from Alaska, who didn't even finish out one term as governor, is not the one I want determining the fate of our country or the world. 

Compared to the Tea Party leaders like Sarah Palin, 'poppy' Bush the Elder was a complete economic genius and world statesman.  Please, I'm begging you, give me back the old Republican Party, the Party of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr., and even Reagan!  (I'm not Republican, but if we have to have a Republican as President, I want one of them!)