President Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place and Republicans and anyone who wants to pile on are shoving the rocks together to make it tighter.
Gaddafi is a brutal dictator who frankly is crazier than Saddam Hussein ever was. And is showing himself to be far worse to people that oppose him. Hussein wanted power, Gaddafi is just crazy. So when the Arab revolts started and spread to Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and then to Libya, we are seeing how much these dictators and monarchies want to stay in power. Some understand their time is limited and others are using force against the people to prove they are in charge.
But in Libya, we have a chance to assist in removal of someone who has caused unrest in the world in the past and will in the future. If he were able to install his son, this idiocy would continue for a very long time. If he can be removed and a non-dictatorship is elected, the Mediterranean could be a more peaceful area.
But there are those in Washington who oppose this action. I seriously doubt it is unconstitutional. I also doubt that Congress never knew the US might be involved. I would hope that some staffer in the Congress listens to CNN and reports to his boss that there might be trouble.
The US had two options, continue on a isolationist path or assist. I do not think the US should become an isolationist as proposed by the Tea Party and others under the guise of money. I don't think we should be the world military leader, although as a friend pointed out, NATO and the EU probably couldn't agree and get organized without the US being the point person.
So why the criticism of our involvement. Is it that these Congressmen and women (and pundits and Monday morning quarterback) really have the nation's well being at heart? Do they worry about the men and women that will be put into harms way? No, they see this as a way to get face time. People who agree with President Obama do not need to be on TV saying they agree, that isn't good news. Conflict! TV news needs conflict. So most of the criticism is just that, good theater.
So should we be there. Yes, in my opinion. I don't want to be there. I don't think we should do all the work either. I do not want ground troops to be involved, unless it is as humanitarian effort after the conflict is over. But in the end, the world will be better if Omar Gaddafi is removed from office.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Radicalization of Republicans
At one time, Tip O’Neill, the very Democratic Speaker of the House, was known to rail about Republicans and then go drinking with them. Allegedly, Ronald Reagan was one of those buddies. Since more gets done when voices are lowered and talking off the record, probably a lot got covered, discussed and agreed to over a few. Fast forward to today. If a Republican was seen chatting with a Democrat, they would be called on the carpet, let alone going to dinner or drinks. Republicans and Democrats see each other as enemies rather than esteemed colleagues of the opposition.
I noticed something odd lately. I believe in the past, say Tip O’Neill’s day, the concept of a vote being on strict party lines was unusual. Probably on bills that related to the core values of either party. But today, Republicans seem to be walking in lock step. The Democrats (being Democrats) can’t do this yet, but it raises some questions.
At one time, Eastern Republicans were hated by the Western Republicans over ideas of land use, water rights etc. Yes, in the core values of Republicanism, they agreed. They were more for more states rights and more defense rather than the current core values. But when a bill was raised that the Western Republicans wanted (allowing land use), they would break away from the rest of the party. The Dixiecrats are another example of this. The Democratic party agreed on a lot of principles, but integration and the South didn’t agree and they broke off to vote what they believed their constituents wanted rather than what the Democrats or Republicans wanted.
So why have the Republicans started to stand together? I believe they have become ‘radicalized’ by someone/something. You see, I can’t see the Republican House of Representatives in the 1950’s agreeing to let the leadership tell them what to vote, even if it meant doing something against the constituents’ needs and views. The Democrats don’t stand well together because they represent varied viewpoints on politics. But the Republicans do too. They have Social conservatives and moderates, Fiscal conservatives and moderates, Defense Hawks and Doves, small government and smaller government etc. Somehow, these people have been brought together under one umbrella to present a united front.
So what brought them together? It could be the selection of candidates. Scott Brown is an excellent example. Senator Brown won on a Tea Party type platform; although he never said he fully supported it. He won over a poorly run campaign by the Democrats. He was swept into the office and I think he was supposed to shut up, sit down and vote the way he was told to vote. Except he didn’t. He voted for Massachusetts first and the Republicans second. And the Republicans and Tea Party became outraged. He has been targeted by the Massachusetts Tea Party in the next election. The Republicans and the Tea Party are talking about ‘purity tests’ to see if the candidate is a good enough Republican to run.
So why does the Republican Party care that much that it is willing to vet all candidates. Money. Money changes everything. Large corporations and very rich people are willing to give money to the Republican Party and I believe it is with the caveat that these people vote the right way every time. And if you want to be elected, you will. There is power and prestige related to being a US Senator or Representative and so you put a few votes where you might not have voted, so be it. Your next election cycle will get a nice contribution and you will have more money to compete against your opponent. Or get the nod as the candidate for the next higher office. Or a lucrative offer if you retire and become a lobbyist. Money.
There has always been hidden puppeteers behind both parties ever since parties were formed. Sometimes, a puppeteer will peek out to show the audience who they are. Often times, the hidden puppeteers’ purpose is money for themselves and friends. But today, it is big money. Eliminate the EPA, make it easier to drill for offshore oil, keep the workers salaries down, lower taxes for the rich, make it easier to off shore jobs without anyone caring. And the puppeteers have gotten together. Because by working together, there is more money to be made.
The next step is the Radicalization of the Democratic Party as an arms race of money. And so on. It will be more difficult to get everyone on the same page, because, well, they are Democrats. But they will if only to counter the radical Republicans.
This is wrong. By removing money from the electoral system, the power bases will have to find another approach to influencing politics and they will. But if we don’t remove money soon, the country will continue to fracture into a left and right. States will have to decide what side of this line they are on. People will have to move to be in the ‘correct’ side of politics until one day, States will secede and the United States will be no more. And the rich will move to the Cayman Islands or to the Nation of Hawaii.
I noticed something odd lately. I believe in the past, say Tip O’Neill’s day, the concept of a vote being on strict party lines was unusual. Probably on bills that related to the core values of either party. But today, Republicans seem to be walking in lock step. The Democrats (being Democrats) can’t do this yet, but it raises some questions.
At one time, Eastern Republicans were hated by the Western Republicans over ideas of land use, water rights etc. Yes, in the core values of Republicanism, they agreed. They were more for more states rights and more defense rather than the current core values. But when a bill was raised that the Western Republicans wanted (allowing land use), they would break away from the rest of the party. The Dixiecrats are another example of this. The Democratic party agreed on a lot of principles, but integration and the South didn’t agree and they broke off to vote what they believed their constituents wanted rather than what the Democrats or Republicans wanted.
So why have the Republicans started to stand together? I believe they have become ‘radicalized’ by someone/something. You see, I can’t see the Republican House of Representatives in the 1950’s agreeing to let the leadership tell them what to vote, even if it meant doing something against the constituents’ needs and views. The Democrats don’t stand well together because they represent varied viewpoints on politics. But the Republicans do too. They have Social conservatives and moderates, Fiscal conservatives and moderates, Defense Hawks and Doves, small government and smaller government etc. Somehow, these people have been brought together under one umbrella to present a united front.
So what brought them together? It could be the selection of candidates. Scott Brown is an excellent example. Senator Brown won on a Tea Party type platform; although he never said he fully supported it. He won over a poorly run campaign by the Democrats. He was swept into the office and I think he was supposed to shut up, sit down and vote the way he was told to vote. Except he didn’t. He voted for Massachusetts first and the Republicans second. And the Republicans and Tea Party became outraged. He has been targeted by the Massachusetts Tea Party in the next election. The Republicans and the Tea Party are talking about ‘purity tests’ to see if the candidate is a good enough Republican to run.
So why does the Republican Party care that much that it is willing to vet all candidates. Money. Money changes everything. Large corporations and very rich people are willing to give money to the Republican Party and I believe it is with the caveat that these people vote the right way every time. And if you want to be elected, you will. There is power and prestige related to being a US Senator or Representative and so you put a few votes where you might not have voted, so be it. Your next election cycle will get a nice contribution and you will have more money to compete against your opponent. Or get the nod as the candidate for the next higher office. Or a lucrative offer if you retire and become a lobbyist. Money.
There has always been hidden puppeteers behind both parties ever since parties were formed. Sometimes, a puppeteer will peek out to show the audience who they are. Often times, the hidden puppeteers’ purpose is money for themselves and friends. But today, it is big money. Eliminate the EPA, make it easier to drill for offshore oil, keep the workers salaries down, lower taxes for the rich, make it easier to off shore jobs without anyone caring. And the puppeteers have gotten together. Because by working together, there is more money to be made.
The next step is the Radicalization of the Democratic Party as an arms race of money. And so on. It will be more difficult to get everyone on the same page, because, well, they are Democrats. But they will if only to counter the radical Republicans.
This is wrong. By removing money from the electoral system, the power bases will have to find another approach to influencing politics and they will. But if we don’t remove money soon, the country will continue to fracture into a left and right. States will have to decide what side of this line they are on. People will have to move to be in the ‘correct’ side of politics until one day, States will secede and the United States will be no more. And the rich will move to the Cayman Islands or to the Nation of Hawaii.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)