Take a Position, Any Position!

An article in the New York Times yesterday tells us that Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and several other prominent Democrats plan to remain neutral throughout the rest of the primary process: www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?th=&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203293177-6kNYj%20zNrKf7zieEzNtvEA&pagewanted=print While this may make sense as they do not want to make enemies with the potential candidate, it is somewhat troubling that timidity continues to rule the day so often with Democrats. Pelosi who was once considered too liberal to lead the Democrats in Congress has been largely ineffective and tended to give too much away to the President losing almost every battle she decides to fight. This seems emblematic of a party that can't seem to find a heart, or any consensus, on what it is they stand for and who they stand with. At least the Republicans wage battles over ideas and what their central ideological positions are. I think it's time for the Democrats to do the same (and not just debate electability and the fine nuances of specific issues in perpetuity).
Obama at least talks about changing the tone in Washington and challenging Democratic orthodoxy. Gore and Pelosi appear to me to be symptomatic of the problem with Democrats since Clinton (and earlier to be honest), which is a lack of resolve and integrity as regards their positions and platforms. I would love to hear a politician with the resolve to say "we need to raise taxes to deal with the deficit, etc." Gore, while since proving himself a man of integrity and principles, lost an election that he should have won in a landslide simply by running on the record he and Clinton amassassed over 8 years. Instead he couldn't decide if he was a new democrat, a populist or an alpha male on the prowl. In the debates, which he should have easily won, he first came off as a rapid dog in heat, then a timid lamb who couldn't find a substantive differences between Bush and himself then a populist who stood with the people against power.
Kerry suffered from similar problems after being anointed by the mainstream media, after they dismantled the candidacy of Howard Dean with a video clip taken completely out of context. Certainly Bush used dirty tactics, including the Swift Boat debacle the media failed to adequately covered, but Kerry never made it clear what he stood for and this is symptomatic of so much of a Democratic establishment that would rather not lose by failing to take any strong, potentially unpopular positions than to win by standing for something: and I mean anything!
Democrats have become like the left since the fall of capitalism -- in making their only position that of negation -- but they further have taken Republican cynicism as their calling: believing that winning at any costs trumps actually believing in something or fighting for it. I think this is why Obama has inspired so many and why the establishment is so scared of actually giving him a chance. I just hope all this talk of superdelegates and neutrality from up high doesn't end up as the latest wrong moves that have cost Democrats and this country for too long . . .

The Election

As the election season heats up, I thought I would add my rather inconsequential two cents on a relatively daily basis; focused on the discourse and media coverage of the campaign. Today's New York Times op ed by the milquetoast David Brooks

www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

seems rather reasonable on the surface. Yes Democrats are making promises they can't keep and will have tough decisions based on the rising deficit and faltering economy upon entering office (if we win). But, there is of course a solution that could help cut those deficits (which were surpluses when GWB entered office, lest us forget). It is simply to turn back the clock and, along with McCain in his original votes before moving right and trying to rewrite his personal history, get rid of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts that simply gave more money to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats should restore the inheritance aka "death" tax, close the loophole for hedge fund managers (who make in the tens and hundreds of millions and pay 15%) and return the system to its more progressive roots (we have essentially ended up with a de facto flat tax today). Of course, the "tax cut" tango must be challenged -- tax cut from the left, tax cut from the right, tax cut for a boom, tax cut for a bust -- and we might remember that there are alternative economic policies available to anyone with a little imagination or a history book that goes back over ten years. As the income gap continues to increase, our education system continues to fail us and the baby boomers shuffle towards retirement and old age someone better realize the times they are a-changing (again) and forge a new path . . .

Bush Announces New Plan to Cut Crime: Before It Happens

By Gina Tonic

BUTTE, Montana, April 11, 2003 – Expanding the preemptive strategy of the war to homeland security, the President and Attorney General today announced a bold new crime initiative. With the bill, the administration hopes to substantially reduce the crime rate by catching criminals before they act.

“Waiting for crimes to happen is waiting too long for crimes to happen,” the President said today after an Iraq War update and a long midday nap.

An unnamed administrative official told In Praise of Folly that Mr. Bush first thought of the idea after seeing the futuristic action film Minority Report. “Wouldn’t it be cool if we could do that now,” he was quoted as saying at the time. “Get these evildoers before they have the opportunity to do bad things to upstanding businessmen and women.”

“Now that we have seen the successful implementation of our plan to free the Iraqi people, I mean secure weapons of mass destruction, I mean free the Iraqi people, it is time to capitalize on the successful preemptive strike strategy.”

The central feature of the plan is a massive racial, religious and socioeconomic profiling plan that should weed out most of the potential criminals before they even consider the idea of committing a crime. “I am confident that we can implement this plan without hearing from those whiney civil liberties folks,” said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. “At least I hope so.”

The new law will be placed as a rider in the bill currently going through Congress to give full immunity to gun producers against those annoying lawsuits. “If we really want to fight crime in this country we need to arm all Americans. How else do we expect to protect ourselves?” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “We are also in the early planning stages of a training program that will allow citizens to strike preemptively against terrorists right here at home. We are calling the plan American Gun Owner Freedom.”

Bush Clarifies Environmental Policy

By Pierre E. Stroika

NEW YORK, April 9, 2003 – In a move that should appease environmental groups and end two years of unyielding contentiousness, President Bush has clarified his environmental stance. Speaking to a group of his favorite corporate sponsors, the President explained “By allowing air pollution and our environment in general to continue to worsen, we can deal with one of the other persistent problems in America today, the exorbitant cost of health care for the aged.”

“By reducing life expectancy, we can abrogate [sic] the strain on Social Security and Medicare while increasing profits for corporations – making the lives of the young that much more satisfying before they die,” Mr. Bush continued.

The President believes that we could also help the economy by kicking out all those “tree-hugging hippies” that are constantly standing in the way of business interests. “I’m hoping to inseminate [sic] into Patriot Act II language that will allow us to excremate [sic] any American that thinks the environment is more important that the economy, or who puts their own health above the need of the country and its invaluable business leaders.”

“I’m satisfied,” said Greenpeace activist Summer Lane. “I wish he had just told us that in the first place instead of pretending that he wanted to help the environment by burning down all the trees, making pollution abatement voluntary and loosening restrictions.”

“Few can argue with the economic position put forward by the administration,” said Alan Greenspan. “Following the advice of Captain Spock, the needs of the many clearly outweigh the needs of the few.”

Other groups also felt the honest approach was turning the tide in the debate. “He did say he was going to restore honesty and integrity to the office, and who can argue with him now. Clinton pretended he like the environment, and yet look at the meager amount he did,” said one non-profit director that wanted to remain anonymous.

Business leaders were also satisfied with the decision. “Listen, it will be much easier for us to explain how we see the world now. Why should we have to pretend to care when our mission is clearly just to maximize profits? It’s like some people have never even taken Economics 101,” said ex Adelphia CEO billionaire John Rigas from his prison cell.