Anyone who opposed the war in Iraq is probably ambivalent to Colin Powell’s public pronouncements, given his role in promoting that war, with questionable assertions, on the world stage. Still, Powell’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama is important. The former general is viewed favorably by a large percent of the population (at least in this 2004 poll). Beyond that, though, he stands at the embodiment of a lifelong moderate Republican shivering as he stares into the abyss of today’s far-right party.
Category Archives: Politics
Race in America
The Los Angeles Times has an interesting piece on the complexities and blind spots of race in America. “Frank Talk of Obama and Race in Virginia” details get-out-the-vote efforts in rural parts of the state and how they collide with voter prejudices and misconceptions. It’s a sad read; I can only hope the attitudes expressed in parts aren’t widespread enough to cost Obama the Presidency.
When Cecil E. Roberts, president of the coal miners union that shapes politics in much of this mountain region, talks to voters, he tells them that their choice is to have “a black friend in the White House or a white enemy.” When Charlie Cox, an Obama supporter, hears friends fretting about Obama’s race, he reminds them that they pull for the nearby University of Tennessee football team, “and they’re black.”
Union organizer Jerry Stallard asks fellow coal workers what’s more important: improving their work conditions or holding onto their skepticism of Obama’s race, culture or religion. “We’re all black in the mines,” he tells them.
…
Ben and Beth Bailey sat in the back and clapped politely, but they remained unpersuaded. They said they were likely to break from their tradition of voting Democratic and might well not vote at all.Obama “just doesn’t seem like he’s from America,” said Beth Bailey, 25. Ben Bailey, 32, noted that Obama’s middle name is Hussein, “and we know what that means.”
Palin’s Debate Cheat Sheet
(Created by the foul-mouthed Aden Nak. I originally saw it on Boing Boing.)
Opposing a Blank Check for the Financial Industry
My letter to my Congressmen
Dear Senators Durbin and Obama and Representative Emanuel:
I’m writing to ask you to oppose Secretary Paulson’s proposal for a blank check to bail out the financial industry. While some form of government intervention may be essential to safeguard the economy, it doesn’t make sense to funnel taxpayer funds, without restrictions, to the very people that got us into this mess.
Privatizing profit and socializing risk is no way to run our economy. It’s disconcerting that the very people who have enshrined personal responsibility and the perfect utility of the free market are being rescued by the public from their own mismanagement.
I support the conditions given by Robert Reich as preconditions for any bailout, namely:
1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.
2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year’s other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?
3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street’s outsized political power – especially when that power is being exercised to get favorable terms from taxpayers?
4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.
5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones?
Please oppose any unrestrained bailout.
Sincerely,
James Seidler
It’s shouting into a tornado, sure, but what else are you going to do?
Planning for a Post-Bush Future
Mother Jones‘ September/October issue, “Exit Strategy: How to Fix a Post-Bush Nation,” offers a comprehensive breakdown of Bush-era bungling. Exploring topics ranging from executive power to domestic priorities, the magazine examines what went wrong (at no small length) and offers a primer on how the next President can recover from Bush administration misconduct and incompetence.
A few stories stood out as particularly relevant:
Jack Hitt’s “Pursuit of Habeas” outlines the origins of habeus corpus and details why the Bush detainment policy was counterproductive as well as illegal.
James K. Gailbraith’s “How to Burn the Speculators” shows how increasing deregulation of the financial industry, stretching back to Reagan, is tied to today’s financial meltdown. (McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm plays a leading role, but the blame is widely spread.)
Finally, “Bush’s Reign of Error: A Timeline,” provides a quick-hit summary of the 43rd President’s many lowlights. Looking back, the scope of his malfeasance is pretty breathtaking. Among other things, I’d forgotten that Henry Kissinger was initially selected to head the 9/11 commission.