All Posts Tagged With: "Barack Obama"
Timing, priorities, political capital, and why Brian Pierce should be patient
At the risk of inflaming the Rainbow Panther brigade, Brian Pierce should simmer down about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, (”DADT”) at least for a little while. Even the most strident gay rights advocate should be able to see that the progressive cause is facing more pressing national priorities right now, like health care reform and the global economic crisis. Taking up DADT right now would be a distraction that would cost the Obama Administration too much political capital. Read more…
Yes we can? Ok I am still waiting.
So beloved leader is starting another Hate America tour, kissing the butts of our enemies and fair weather friends in the middle east while alienating our only true alliance. great! meanwhile, have you noticed gas is creeping back up, 2.70 per gallon in town today. And we have drilled exactly no new oil wells, broke ground on exactly no new refineries, developed exactly no coal shale technology, built exactly no new nuke plants, developed exactly no new natural gas fields, run exactly no new pipelines from Anwar, let’s see – what we have done is spend a butt ton of money, not sure on what —– Oh probably our new attack submarine fleet, oh no, maybe new fighter jets? no we are cutting back on those, probably our new satellite defense system, – no, well maybe it is on our revitalized space program, well no not that either. I don’t think we have even built new levies for those leeches in New Orleans who are too stupid to know better than to build their town below sea level! But we are ok if Iran develops nuclear technology as long as they cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die promise no to use it for weapons. How many Trillions, or Bazillions, (or gaggles or googles or whatever) have we spent? (no not on date night with Michele but on making America the greatest nation on earth?) Easy answer – exactly none
With the money we are spending we could build coast to coast high speed railroads, develop a fleet of natural gas cars and trucks, hell we could build a tunnel to Brittan! A new power transmission grid fed by new advanced nuclear reactors, all dangerous spent nuclear fuel should be safely buried a mile deep in solid bedrock below Nevada at Yucca Mountain. We should be completely energy independent from the nuts in the Middle East. Lets revitalize our steel industry. A nation that doesn’t make its own steel is in decline. Let’s measure this “great” administration’s success by how much they BUILD (lest Atlas shrugs and all the builders go away). Crap, I’d settle for a fleet of Zeppelins!
Get Out of My House
The conservative New York Post published the above cartoon depicting police officers shooting a monkey dead and then implying that the monkey authored the stimulus bill. It is not a large logical leap to assume that the cartoon’s author used the monkey as a symbol of President Obama. The best we can say for the cartoon’s author is that he has revealed racial insensitivity and ignorance of American history. All of this reminds me of the Danish Muslim cartoon fiasco a few years ago. Brian Pierce and I wrestled each other in the Daily Illini on this issue. Why do cartoons have the ability provoke more ire than words?
This cartoon troubles me. I debated whether to post it on Urbanagora for fear of promoting it rather than deriding it. However, in all but a few instances I support free speech with vigor and rage, even when the speech offends millions of people. What we learn about the ignorance of the author can only be learned by allowing him to speak. The full breadth of an idiot’s idiocy can only be known if we allow him to speak. The cartoon’s audience also learns what offends people and why it offends them. We learn how to better distinguish between idiotic speech and valuable speech. Read more…
Troop Increases In Afghanistan
In my previous post on Afghanistan I argued in support of lowering our expectations there and focusing our strategy on eliminating the safe haven for Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, rather than turning Afghanistan into a prosperous democracy. I also suggested – and there seems to be a general consensus on this point – that the support of the Afghan people is central to winning this war.
It’s been widely reported that President Obama has ordered the sending 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. I support that decision, as long as it is made in the context of the strategy I just indicated (we’ll find out if that’s the case when we find out the results of the 60-day Af-Pak strategy review). It’s not at first glance clear how more troops are consistent with such a strategy – it might seem that more troops are necessary only if we’re pursuing a more ambitious strategy, and that a greater, more intrusive American presence is more likely to inflame Afghan popular opinion. That’s definitely the risk that comes with more troops, but this UN report is enough to persuade me that more troops is better than what we’re doing now.
The level of civilian deaths last year was at its highest since the war began. A small majority – 55% – of those deaths were caused by the Taliban, which is good news in the sense that it’s better than if we were causing the most civilian deaths there. But the trouble is that of the civilian deaths caused by us, 65% are a result of airstrikes. Airstrikes are an important tool, but if they’re going to result in large numbers of civilian deaths, they need to be avoided if possible. An increased ground presence will, presumably, at least partially alleviate the need for airstrikes. Our presence will be more pervasive, but the tradeoff is (hopefully) fewer civilian deaths, which is hugely beneficial to our goals there. It also, of course, puts American troops at greater risk, which is why if we’re going to fight this war at all, we need to have clear and realistic objectives so we’re not sending these troops into a quagmire. It’s not yet clear if that’s the case, but hopefully Obama or Gates gives us some indication sometime soon.
Fear, Cowardice, and D.C. Politics
A president once said that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. He was wrong. Fear can be good. Fear, so long as it does not dictate our actions, can be a moderating influence. Read more…
On the Inauguration and Religion
I watched the Inauguration here in London with the other students in my program, a group of mostly non-Americans happy about Obama’s election and ready to join in the celebration. The experience was not particularly different from what it would have been like to watch with a group of friends in the US, with one notable exception: the surprise and distaste for the religious overtones throughout the ceremony.
Predictions for the early days of the Obama administration
1) Obama will go with a short speech, powerful, memorable, quotable speech which will be under 20 minutes long. JFK’s inaugural was 12 minutes long, and there is a connection. Ted Sorenson who wrote much of the Kennedy inaugural address, and who advises Obama, had help with his memoirs from a young man who is now one of Obama’s speech writers. And this year’s inaugural theme is centered on Lincoln, including using Lincoln’s Bible. Another historic analogy that will be quickly and often drawn is the comparison to Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address.
2) Obama wont rush dont ask dont tell. This will be pushed back out of the beginning of the agenda. While Obama might be catching some hell from the gay community about dont ask dont tell, he’s way to smart to let this derail his first 100 days the way it derailed Clintons. Too much political capital.
3) Stimulus will pass with broad bipartisan support, and many republicans will later regret their vote as they run low on popular ways to distinguish their record from Dems.
4) A few months stories will break about the ultimate policy pragmatist Rahm sparring with Congressional leaders about what to push when, he’ll be pushing to keep things centrist and post-partisan a while longer.
5) Michelle Obama will dazzle us all with her poise and grace. By the end of 2009, she will have a higher approval rating than even the Barackstar.
6) Neither Cuomo nor Kennedy will be the next Senator from NY.
7) Dow will be above 10,000 by July, but will dip below 7,900 again before April.
8) Jaybandit and I are having a weight loss contest, I will win.
Building for the Future
Earlier this month president-elect Barack Obama announced that he intends to enact a new economic stimulus package to create 2.5 million jobs and help stabilize our flagging economy. This stimulus package is on a truly massive scale. Initial numbers ran in the $700 billion range, but more recent reports suggest $775 billion or eventually $1 trillion.
So the government is about to spend a gajillion dollars and the transition team is probably thinking up how to target the investments to get the most bang for the buck. Many have suggested using a chunk of it to help states or to fund proposed and planned infrastructure projects. Funding infrastructure projects has the benefit of putting large numbers of people directly to work in construction. Indirectly it will stimulate demand and create jobs in other sectors that supply materials as well as in service sectors as people spend the money they’re earning with their nifty construction jobs.
Will Obama Continue Bush’s Secret Spying Agenda?
Is it conceivable that Obama will continue the secret surveillance tactics of the Bush Administration? Despite claims from my colleagues on the blog that Obama’s views on all things from puppies to Iran are perfectly clear and thoroughly outlined in his position papers, it appears that Obama’s views on NSA operations are unknown.
An article in today’s New York Times recounts Obama’s contradictory and confusing history with NSA operation legislation:
As a presidential candidate, he condemned the N.S.A. operation as illegal, and threatened to filibuster a bill that would grant the government expanded surveillance powers and provide immunity to phone companies that helped in the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants. But Mr. Obama switched positions and ultimately supported the measure in the Senate, angering liberal supporters who accused him of bowing to pressure from the right.
Hillary for Sec of State?
What do you all think of the buzz about Pres-Elect Obama offering the Sec. of State position to Hillary Clinton? Here are some pros by Chris at the Outside Report (here too). And here are 5 cons from Ken Silverstein.