Jim Kennedy: Give Bipartisanship A Chance
1 hour ago
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Man, that sucked
Well, Blogger successfully died for all of its users throughout the entire State of the Union. Go Blogger go! But we're back, and man did that speech suck. Boring. I was bored. The audience was bored. Hell, even Bush looked bored. There were only two exciting moments the entire night - first, when they did they camera zoom in on Condi that was simply frightening, and second, Jim Webb. He was amazing. And damn good speech too. But Bush... I really think his speech got re-written at the last minute after they'd gotten so much heat for their announced plans to pretty much ignore Iraq tonight. Speaking of ignoring, what the hell happened to family values and the social conservatives. Did they get ANYTHING in the entire speech? Abortion, gone. Activist judges, gone. Gay marriage, gone. That's the sleeper shocker of this speech, the utter cleansing of anything that would appeal to the family values crowd. They have truly become the crazy aunt in the attic, to be hidden at all costs.
Read More......
State of the Union open thread
Guess what? Blogger died. Suprise! But when it comes back, you'll see this post, and then you can chat.
Read More......
The text of the Democratic response
Democratic Response of Senator Jim Webb
To the President's State of the Union Address
Good evening.
I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.
The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.
Financially.
The damage to our reputation around the world.
The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.
And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America. Read More......
To the President's State of the Union Address
Good evening.
I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.
The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.
Financially.
The damage to our reputation around the world.
The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.
And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America. Read More......
Pre-SOTU (as we call it inside the beltway) discussion
I had an interesting day today. I was invited to a progressive media conference in the Capitol Building, and I wasn't expecting much. No offense to our hosts, but political lectures get old, fast :-) I was pleasantly surprised.
We started with Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). Stabenow was an engaging, warm, midwestern mom. It's the only way I can describe her as a fellow midwesterner. Just a real nice lady who clearly knows her stuff. Miller, now that man's a hoot. You guys would love him. Tough as nails. No bull. Smart. And fearless. A truly captivating man. And then there's Wasserman Schultz. I'd seen her before on committees, and she always looked a bit stern. In person, she's good, real good. Smart, well-spoken, solid. Just very impressive.
Then we moved upstairs and had our series of meetings with various senators. Among those who sat down to talk with us were Senators Reid (NV), Reed (RI), Dorgan (ND), Sanders (VT), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), Kennedy (MA), Klobuchar (MN), Murray (WA) and I'm sure I'm missing someone. Others dropped by during a reception at the very end and chatted with us, including Casey (PA), Clinton (NY), Schumer (NY), Harkin (IA), Lautenberg (NJ), Akaka (HI), Tester (MT), Webb (VA), Byrd (WV), Landrieu (LA), McCaskill (MO), and I can't even remember who else. It was an impressive turnout. (Lieberman was nowhere to be seen.)
I got a chance to have a talk with Casey, who beat Santorum. It was interesting. I pointed out the fact that a lot of us had qualms about Casey, especially with his record (or his perceived record) on gay rights. But that I thought it was important that the know that we still busted our butts helping him win. He said that he knew that, he was really impressed how much the gay community supported him, and, well, he definitely took note. I told him this was in marked contrast to Harold Ford, who, while yes I wanted him to win so we could win back the Senate, it was still hard doing much to help Ford because the man panders to bigots.
I also had a chat with Schumer, who is busy pushing his new book, "Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class One Family at a Time." And McCaskill, Akaka, Landrieu (I told Landrieu that if she's planning on doing anything big on New Orleans, to let us know - I think it's sick how the country (read: Republicans) have abandoned that city). I also talked to Hillary for a bit. First impression, quite good. We talked about blogging a bit, the meeting we had with her husband in September. She was clearly the star of the event - everyone wanted their picture with her - but she didn't mind, wasn't the primadonna, and that says something in this town.
Anyway, it was a much more interesting day than I expected. Now on to the chimp.
A few more photos from the day:
This was the closing reception
(click to see larger image)
Wasserman Schultz and Miller
Levin and Reed (RI)
Reed (RI)
Guess
Leahy and Dorgan
Leahy, Dorgan and Murray
Reid, Stabenow, Klobuchar
Webb
Randi Rhodes
Read More......
We started with Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). Stabenow was an engaging, warm, midwestern mom. It's the only way I can describe her as a fellow midwesterner. Just a real nice lady who clearly knows her stuff. Miller, now that man's a hoot. You guys would love him. Tough as nails. No bull. Smart. And fearless. A truly captivating man. And then there's Wasserman Schultz. I'd seen her before on committees, and she always looked a bit stern. In person, she's good, real good. Smart, well-spoken, solid. Just very impressive.
Then we moved upstairs and had our series of meetings with various senators. Among those who sat down to talk with us were Senators Reid (NV), Reed (RI), Dorgan (ND), Sanders (VT), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), Kennedy (MA), Klobuchar (MN), Murray (WA) and I'm sure I'm missing someone. Others dropped by during a reception at the very end and chatted with us, including Casey (PA), Clinton (NY), Schumer (NY), Harkin (IA), Lautenberg (NJ), Akaka (HI), Tester (MT), Webb (VA), Byrd (WV), Landrieu (LA), McCaskill (MO), and I can't even remember who else. It was an impressive turnout. (Lieberman was nowhere to be seen.)
I got a chance to have a talk with Casey, who beat Santorum. It was interesting. I pointed out the fact that a lot of us had qualms about Casey, especially with his record (or his perceived record) on gay rights. But that I thought it was important that the know that we still busted our butts helping him win. He said that he knew that, he was really impressed how much the gay community supported him, and, well, he definitely took note. I told him this was in marked contrast to Harold Ford, who, while yes I wanted him to win so we could win back the Senate, it was still hard doing much to help Ford because the man panders to bigots.
I also had a chat with Schumer, who is busy pushing his new book, "Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class One Family at a Time." And McCaskill, Akaka, Landrieu (I told Landrieu that if she's planning on doing anything big on New Orleans, to let us know - I think it's sick how the country (read: Republicans) have abandoned that city). I also talked to Hillary for a bit. First impression, quite good. We talked about blogging a bit, the meeting we had with her husband in September. She was clearly the star of the event - everyone wanted their picture with her - but she didn't mind, wasn't the primadonna, and that says something in this town.
Anyway, it was a much more interesting day than I expected. Now on to the chimp.
A few more photos from the day:
This was the closing reception
(click to see larger image)
Wasserman Schultz and Miller
Levin and Reed (RI)
Reed (RI)
Guess
Leahy and Dorgan
Leahy, Dorgan and Murray
Reid, Stabenow, Klobuchar
Webb
Randi Rhodes
Read More......
Froomkin: "President Bush tonight will try to change the subject -- and will fail."
From the Wash Post:
President Bush tonight will try to change the subject -- and will fail.Read More......
That's the consensus of the Washington press corps, which is nearly unanimous today in describing a badly weakened president desperate to boost his standing by talking about anything but Iraq.
Webb to deliver "blistering" rebuttal to Bush
UPDATE: Just read the speech. It's good. Blistering is a good adjective. Though that's only one small portion. It's a good speech, short, to the point, hits both domestic and foreign policy. And doesn't let Bush off the hook. I'll be posting it at 845pm after the embargo lifts.
Sounds like the Republicans are a bit scared. Read More......
Sounds like the Republicans are a bit scared. Read More......
Congressman Miller on health care, and more photos
(Click to see larger image.)
Senators Debbie Stabenow (MI), Carl Levin (MI), Jack Reed (RI) and Bernie Sanders (VT) talk to the room full of progressive talk radio and bloggers (Ezra Klein is here from American Prospect, holding up the blogger end with me - Rhandi Rhodes and Ed Schultz are here too (sp?)). Read More......
Al Gore environment documentary gets two Oscar nominations
From ABC:
"An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's film on the perils of global warming, scored two Oscar nominations Tuesday for best documentary feature and best original song. While he is not technically a nominee the film's director, Davis Guggenheim, won the nod, as did singer Melissa Etheridge for the song "I Need to Wake Up" Gore said he was "thrilled" that his movie was honored.Read More......
"The film … has brought awareness of the climate crisis to people in the United States and all over the world," Gore said in an e-mail statement. "I am so grateful to the entire team and pleased that the Academy has recognized their work. This film proves that movies really can make a difference."
Roles of Cheney and Rove dominate opening arguments in Libby trial -- Scooter says Karl set him up
While most politicos and pundits are focused on the State of the Union, a building that lies just about half way between the White House and the Capitol is the scene of another major political drama. That would be the Federal Court where opening arguments took place this morning in the trial of Scooter Libby. And it's been explosive today. Libby's claim is that Rove set him up. The prosecutor says that Cheney played a much, much bigger role in the scandal.
The Associated Press report on opening arguments in the Libby trial led with defense team's claim that Libby is another victim of Karl Rove:
The Associated Press report on opening arguments in the Libby trial led with defense team's claim that Libby is another victim of Karl Rove:
I. Lewis Libby's attorney countered by painting a different White House plot, alleging that administration officials sought to blame Libby for the leak to protect Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures.Think Progress has the video from MSNBC's report that Cheney was "more deeply involved in the CIA leak case than previously thought." David Shuster reported that Cheney's involvement would "astound a number of people even those who have been following this case." From ther reports on Fitzgerald's opening argument, it sounds like Cheney was indeed the mastermind behind the effort to fight back against Ambassador Wilson. Read More......
"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling a conversation between Libby and his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, as the leak investigation heated up in 2003. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."
State of the Union preview -- Bush is going to rally us with themes
On CNN, I've been hearing Elaine Quijano repeat over and over the White House talking point that Bush's speech tonight will be "thematic." Via Reuters, we learn that the President is going to try one more time to get us on his side. Themes and spin. He's got nothing else:
Read More......
President George W. Bush will try in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday to rally skeptical Americans behind his latest Iraq plan and revive a domestic agenda resisted by the new Democratic-led Congress.Via John Aravosis, we'll be getting the perspective from the House and Senate Democrats on tonight's event. John is at a briefing in the Capitol right now. He just e-mailed this picture of Michigan's Debbie Stabenow who was the first speaker:
With polls showing him at the weakest point of his presidency, Bush was preparing to deliver his annual address to a nation increasingly opposed to the Iraq war and unsupportive of his drive to send in 21,500 more troops.
Bush will be in the uncomfortable position of addressing a Congress entirely controlled by Democrats for the first time since he took office, a stark reminder of how much the political landscape has shifted since November's elections.
Read More......
Time to ask Best Buy and Office Depot how they feel about the word "faggot" being associated with their product
UPDATE: ThinkProgress has the video of CNN host using the word "faggot" and demeaning its negative impact. (We couldn't have captioned the screen shot better.)
Best Buy and Office Depot support CNN host Glenn Beck. They had their ads running on the very show that Beck used the word "faggot" last night. Time to ask Best Buy and Office Depot if they agree with Beck that "faggot" is just a "naughty name." More from "My Two Sense" blog:
Contact Best Buy online here
Best Buy Co., Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
P.O. Box 9312
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9312
612-291-1000
Contact Office Depot online here
Office Depot
2200 Old Germantown Road
Delray Beach, FL 33445
1-800-463-3768 Read More......
Washington Post anti-Democratic hack John Solomon hosting online chat 11am Eastern today
You remember him. He's the guy who doesn't tell you the entire story and leads you to believe Democrats did something wrong, then exonerates them in the 10th or 19th paragraph. He's hosting a chat on the Post Web site right about now. Drop by and ask him some tough questions about journalistic bias and lying. Some background from TPM. And more background from AMERICAblog.
Read More......
Foreign policy "electability"
This point about the problems and dangers of debating the "electability" of Democratic presidential candidates is an important one, and I think to the extent the meme is used, it will often be tied to foreign policy.
No matter which is your favorite, I absolutely believe that every single major Democratic candidate is fully capable of effecting an effective and progressive foreign policy. While I might not agree with all the positions that will be floated over the course of the campaign, I don't think there are currently any disqualifying factors. A huge lesson from this administration is that logic and intellectual curiosity are the vital qualities for sane foreign policy -- remember when this administration had the greatest collection of foreign policy talent evah, and the brilliant grownup coalition of Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and especially Cheney were going to guide the new president? -- and the current Democratic crop has those qualities in abundance.
The leading candidates represent an embarrassment of riches in talent, thoughtfulness, and intelligence, and any one of them should beat whatever "I was a rubber stamp for the war until, um, a couple months ago!" Republican gets the nomination.
If anything, the electability question should be this: Can a candidate who fails to recognize the problems with the Iraq war, both in theory and in practice, win a national election? I say no, and that criteria basically wipes out the "top tier" of Republican hopefuls. Read More......
No matter which is your favorite, I absolutely believe that every single major Democratic candidate is fully capable of effecting an effective and progressive foreign policy. While I might not agree with all the positions that will be floated over the course of the campaign, I don't think there are currently any disqualifying factors. A huge lesson from this administration is that logic and intellectual curiosity are the vital qualities for sane foreign policy -- remember when this administration had the greatest collection of foreign policy talent evah, and the brilliant grownup coalition of Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and especially Cheney were going to guide the new president? -- and the current Democratic crop has those qualities in abundance.
The leading candidates represent an embarrassment of riches in talent, thoughtfulness, and intelligence, and any one of them should beat whatever "I was a rubber stamp for the war until, um, a couple months ago!" Republican gets the nomination.
If anything, the electability question should be this: Can a candidate who fails to recognize the problems with the Iraq war, both in theory and in practice, win a national election? I say no, and that criteria basically wipes out the "top tier" of Republican hopefuls. Read More......
"Hot" news out of Iraq the last two days
What are the odds that the FBI suddenly announces an al Qaida threat to America (after supposedly having the information for six months and it being just an "informal list" and from Zarqawi who was killed last summer) and then the arrest of 600 al Sadr fighters just before Bush speaks to the nation? Amazing, isn't it? So who's playing political games with politics and Iraq?
Read More......
Tuesday Morning Open Thread
Ugh. I watched Tony Snow spinning on both the Today Show and CNN already this morning....before my coffee even. The White House can spin all they want, it's over for them. Americans don't believe anything Bush says anymore. Not a thing.
But I am looking forward to watching Jim Webb give the response. He's already smacked down Bush once in private. Can't wait to see him do it on nationwide t.v. Read More......
But I am looking forward to watching Jim Webb give the response. He's already smacked down Bush once in private. Can't wait to see him do it on nationwide t.v. Read More......
Bush a cellar dweller in another new poll
The new NBC/WSJ poll has Bush sitting on a 35% approval, 60% disapproval rate.
In addition, the poll finds that nearly another two-thirds believe he shouldn'?t move ahead with his troop increase to Iraq, if Congress passes a non-binding resolution opposing it. And it shows that just two in 10 want Bush taking the lead role in setting policy for the country.Read More......
Gap CEO fired - receives $14 million
I understand the fired part, but $14 million to walk away? Great for Pressler for negotiating package like that but why do corporate boards continue to pay failures so handsomely? Recently the Home Depot CEO was given the boot and received over $200 million. Again, great negotiations and everyone agreed to this though I find this disturbing in the context of their failures as CEOs. That a CEO has a lot more responsibility and stress and can make a big difference in the performance of a company, sure, but I am not very convinced that for all of the CEO pay excess, companies and shareholders are really seeing a positive difference. The pool of true difference makers is very small.
I also take issue with corporates who find it necessary to bathe their CEOs in riches while stripping or reducing employees - even well paid, well educated employees- of what used to be standard benefits. With so many failures like Pressler or Nardelli cashing in, what will it take for the public and more importantly corporate boards, to say enough? Read More......
I also take issue with corporates who find it necessary to bathe their CEOs in riches while stripping or reducing employees - even well paid, well educated employees- of what used to be standard benefits. With so many failures like Pressler or Nardelli cashing in, what will it take for the public and more importantly corporate boards, to say enough? Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
