GOP needs a new catalyst

Many have no doubt seen the fox video that details just how ignorant sarah palin was when she was selected to be the potential vice president. This is just the beggining of the internal war for control of the GOP. Sarah Palin is going to get obliterated in this fight. Many others are likely to be in the same boat. Palin, because she is an obvious target, and any remaining moderates because they will be outnumbered and encumbered with the failure of John McCain. With the moderates gone the dominante narrative for why they lost the election is going to be the economic crisis, sarah palin, and bush not being a true conservative.

Exhibit A,



Chafee is correct that the republican's failed in governance. They were good at winning elections but not governing. The problem is that he specifies the failure of Bush mostly in profligate spending. He blames Bush for not being a true conservative. So even Chafee has the wrong idea about what the conservatives need.

The conservative party at its core is a reactionary party. They run against things. Unfortunately after eight years in power they ran out of things that made sense to run against. To some extent this is where you can blame Bush because he undercut all of their arguments against the democrats with his abominable record. Bush alone though is not the answer. Look at the polling on the issue over at pollingreport.com and what you find is that a majority of americans side with the democrats on issue after issue.

The Republican party is stuck in a time freeze. They imagine that America is just as it was during 1980 when Reagan was elected. This is clearly not the case as the election of Obama proved. The white vote is becoming less powerful as time moves forward and the GOP has become the white party. They need to restart their outreach to minority communities, they need new rhetoric. Until we see people of color leading the Republican party i really doubt they manage to reestablish a national power base.

What the Republicans need most is new ideas. The ideas the currently run on have been neutralized in many ways. they no longer have welfare to run against, the terrorism smears failed against oabama. Abortion is not a winning issue with the voters they need to reach. Bashing guys is an issue that has just about reached its sell by date. Although several propositions were passed around the country attacking gay rights the age breakdowns suggest that they wont last very long. What is eventually going to spur a Republican resurgence is an Obama administration failure.

Obama is going to do something that does not work and as soon as that happens the GOP will latch onto that and ride it into the ground. As a party they do well in the opposition where they can be passionate and ideological without serious responsibility. They can tear down instead of building up. Until Obama puts a foot wrong though they wont have the location of their new attack strategy.

Read more...

The Fight for Accountability

Last night in the midst of the celebration Meteor Blades posted a diary that touched on an essential subject. Accountability of those who have placed us in this horrible mess. As President Obama takes office it is a lingering question whether or not he will follow through on promises to close guantanamo and to hold the people who screwed everything up accountable. Will Obama do as Ford did and throw accountability under the bus or will he affirm in no uncertain terms that no one is above the law? If it comes down to holding Bush Administration people responsible versus passing health care of major infrastructure reform we know that Bush and Co is going to get a pass.

A quote from Meteor Blades outlining perfectly the point of view and worry over holding those Bush Admin people responsible.

Barack Obama's promises of a broad bipartisan focus on solving our country's problems may prove as wise as the similar message of the Civil War president whose words echoed in the Grant Park speech. But that healing cannot occur, not wholly, unless the crimes that have brought our nation to such a ruinous condition - morally, economically and politically - are investigated thoroughly and a proper penalty imposed. Most importantly, the bent machinery that allowed, nay encouraged, those crimes must be rebuilt with safeguards so that they never occur again. That's not vengeance. It's justice. And true healing and progress cannot come about without it.

You can put me down in the column that needs to see some heads on this one. I truly believe that it is essential that we augment the the laws pertaining to governing our nation with the proof of punishment. We must demonstrate credibility on this issue or else the precedent set is one of excused criminality. What stops a future power abuser and criminal if they know that after they finish raping the country that they will be forgiven in the "best interests of the country to move on"?

Nothing epitomizes this more than the need to hold some people responsible for Guantanamo Bay Prison and the abuses that occur there. The story of that place will be a black mark on America's record akin to the internment of the Japanese during WWII. This is not to say that all the people there are innocent. However there are plenty of people who are, some even acknowledged by the government itself. Gitmo stands as a testament to abuses of human rights and due process. For our country to claim any moral authority we need to do more than simply elect an African American we need to clean up the mess.

Here is Obama on the topic of holding Bushies responsible,

Q: I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

A: What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

The answer is a mixed bag. There are some good things like supporting the concept that nobody is above the law. There are also some iffy parts like making the distinction between bad policy and breaking the law. That seems like a very broad net that will let unethical activities off the hook. For instance would Palin's pressuring of Monegan satisfy the Obama standard? I doubt it. A great deal is of the worst excesses and abuses are going to fall under bad policy as opposed to criminal malfeasance. However, people who screwed up their job, and by extension the country, so completely should not be let off the hook. The people need to be identified at the very least so that they may be subjected to a minimum of public shaming.

You can tell from his acceptance speech that Obama is going to be highly focused on building a true bi partisan administration. He is genuinely concerned about undermining this by going after bushies. I can just see where this is going to lead. Obama is a pragmatic man and when it comes down to passing the big legislation versus holding some people criminally liable, legislation wins. I think you can certainly balance the two but i dont know if Obama is willing to take that risk.

I dont want to dampen the excitement over an Obama election. It truly is a great step forward for our country; but like Obama said, his election is not the change but merely the first step on a long road to change. We may have won this election but the next 2-4 years will be very important in determining whether we can create a long lasting progressive government or whether we let the gop back in the door. This first step is to cleanse the blight of the last eight years. Hold the those people who decimated the government responsible otherwise we let a malignant cyst fester. A part of the Obama election must be read as a mandate to hold people accountable. So lets hold both Bush, for his past abuses, and Obama, in his future activities, accountable because no one is above the law.

Read more...

The Election of Barack Obama

The election of Obama is a very important step forward for America. It fulfills the best promises of our nation, that a person rises and falls on the merits of their own ability regardless of skin color or heritage or sexual affiliation or religious affiliation. Well maybe not sexual affiliation just yet. I think the most important part about electing an African American to the presidency is that he was the best man for the job. I could not have voted for him if he did not meet that requirement.

Obama truly ran a race designed to be as free of sleaze as he could make it. He largely succeeded at this and in doing so has provided hope that others will follow in this path and run on issues and problem solving. Obama allows our country to breathe a giant sigh of relief that Bush, despite his best efforts, has failed to totally destroy the country.

Obama has a big win and a solid mandate to follow through on his policy proposals. I hope he chooses to get that health care done first. There is a lot on his plate including the closure of Gitmo. Not to mention the massive economic issues he must deal with.

Obama though is not perfect. He seems to be very much focused on moving forward without dealing with the sins of the past. I hope i am wrong about that because i think it is truly important that we deal with those who have so disgraced us in the eyes of the world. It is not enough to simply work to undue what they have done, we need to provide a disincentive to ever try and do it again. Accountability should be the watch word. Sadly i dont see obama following through on this, but i hope i am wrong.

So congratulations to everyone who worked their asses off to get him elected and to america for having the good sense to vote for him. He was truly the best choice, the best person for the moment. Now the work of governing and fixing our problems begins.

Read more...

Prediction Post

Because all the cool kids are doing it.

* 58 Democratic Senate seats
* 40 Republican Senate seats
* 263 Democratic House seats
* 172 Republican House seats
* 353 Obama Electoral Votes
* 185 McCain Electoral Votes
* 52.1 Obama Popular Vote Percentage
* 47.5 McCain Popular Vote Percentage

Read more...

Obama Should Govern From the Left

As the prospect of an Obama victory becomes more likely many commentators are feverishly penning articles that demand Obama respect, (1) this is a center right country, (2) everyone is really just voting against Bush, (3) "bi-partisanship", (4) the dangers of liberal over-reach. All of these arguments are designed to do one thing, make sure that Obama does not actually govern as *Gulp* a liberal. Obama was never going to be a kucinich or sandersesque leftist but he is solidly left of center and, apparently, this is very scary. There is no reason for him to hide his non-conservativeness or govern in a manner other than that which he promised to govern. Obama has promised to govern from the left and it is the correct thing to do.

What has Obama promised to do?

Favoring aggressive action to control greenhouse-gas emissions, he is open to considering nuclear power and has explicitly credited Republicans for promoting market-oriented approaches to environmental problems (and he has attracted the scorn of some on the left for doing so). A sharp critic of No Child Left Behind, he has spoken favorably about merit pay for teachers. Offering an ambitious health care plan, he would not require adults to purchase health insurance. His goal is to make health care available, not to force people to buy it--a judgment that reflects Obama's commitment to freedom of choice, his pragmatic nature (an enforcement question: Would those without health care be fined or jailed?), and his desire to produce a plan that might actually obtain a consensus. And, while he would raise taxes on the very richest Americans, he is hardly anti-business; indeed, he proposes to eliminate the capital gains tax for start-ups and small companies.

and for another take,

He’s running on a platform that promises universal preschool, dramatic cuts in carbon emissions and investments in clean energy infrastructure, health insurance that would be affordable for all, comprehensive immigration reform, substantial labor law reform, large new spending on K-12 initiatives, and tax reform to make the federal code much more progressive overall.

Is it really the suggestion of the arguments in the intro that Obama not follow through on these proposals? I think that to make the case that Obama should not actually do the things he has promised requires a stronger evidential showing than has been produced so far. In order to prevent Obama from enacting his promised initiatives we would need clear and convincing evidence that the American public is not supportive of them. I don't see that evidence.

Let's look at one issue in particular that many of the people who make claims about "bi-partisanship" want to see both sides get together and work out a new plan and not the one Obama campaigned on. If we look at two recent polls on the issue we find first a CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 12-16, 2008 where 50% of respondents support fundamental changes and 35% support complete overhaul. To give some direction to this fundamental change we can gauche the attitudes of voters on universal coverage. On this topic an ABC News/Washington Post Poll from June found 66% supported coverage for all even if it meant an accompanying tax increase. Obama's position where he advances coverage without ending the employer based system fits squarely into the majority opinion in these two polls. Clearly people want the type of reform Obama is offering. If Obama's position already has solid majority support why should he let it be watered down and altered?

This finding is not limited to health care alone. A brand new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll found that when asked, "whether you agree or disagree with each of the following candidates on the issues that matter the most to you" 60% of them agreed that Obama is in alignment with them on the issues matter. If you do not like a poll as a basis for governing then consider that on Tuesday we have an actual election with the goal of deciding who we want to lead the country.

Elections are to determine the direction we want our country to go in. Voters have a choice between McCain and Obama and their myriad different policy positions. Some have argued that this election is not a ratification of Barack Obama and his policy choices at all but a simple repudiation of Bush. This argument makes the fundamental mistake of distinguishing Bush from the actions of the party which he lead. The Republican Party controlled every branch of government from 2000-2006. During that time frame we did not see the Republicans in either the house or the senate standing up to Bush and opposing the governing decisions that the American people are rejecting. The Republicans never sought to regulate the banking industry, the never sought to close Guantanamo, they opposed withdrawal from Iraq, they opposed S-CHIP, they were more than willing to support Alberto Gonzalez and the politicization of the DOJ. Bush was supposed to be the standard bearer for the conservative movement and his presidency will be the biggest failure in American History and the Republican party has held his hand all the way down.

The general point is that the American people are rejecting the failure of the Republican party in governance. If you really dont want to connect that failure to an ideological issue fine, but realize that there policy attitude has not changed. They will continue to advocate the same failed policy proscriptions without cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush. This will make working with them nearly impossible. Why would a President Obama compromise with the group that lead us headlong into this mess and refuses to change? Make no mistake the Republican's left in Congress after this election will not be the most moderate and interested in helping a president Obama.

So what does the political world look like on Wednesday if the gurus at ABC News are right? They all announced their guesses Sunday morning, and the average of their projections is 352 electoral votes for Obama plus a pickup for the Democrats of 24 seats in the House and 7 or 8 seats in the Senate.

If this happens, the upshot is that both parties get moved to the right. Most of the Democratic pickups will be in centrist states and districts, which will move the Democratic caucus moderately toward the center. At the same time, it will remove these centrist states and districts from the Republican side, which will make the GOP caucus not just smaller, but even more conservative than it is now. As a touchstone, the Republican Study Committee, the hardcore conservative wing of the House GOP contingent, currently represents a little over half of their total strength. After Tuesday they're likely to represent nearly two-thirds, which means that the rump of the House Republican caucus remaining after Tuesday is likely to be almost entirely in the hands of the most faithful of the movement conservative faithful. These true believers are not likely to give in quickly to the notion that hardcore conservative ideology needs a bit of freshening up if the party wants to regain its competitive edge. On the contrary, they'll probably double down, convinced that they lost only because John McCain and George Bush abandoned the true faith that America truly yearns for.

It is hard to image that the American people really want a president Obama who caves to the people who represent the exact thing they threw out of office. The American people want competency and success after eight long years of failure. That means simply delivering on what Obama has promised them. If Obama takes his plans, ratified and supported by the voting public, and executes them every thing will be fine. If instead he tries to moderate them and fails then his ideological background or governing from "the center" will be meaningless in the eyes of voters. We know the conservative plans don't work so why would we continue to use them? Obama should go with his natural instincts, left of center governance.

Read more...