Posts Tagged politics
The Obama administration made a surprisingly simple miscalculation early on – they adopted a cautious centrism that was intended to alleviate the right’s fears, to hopefully limit the amount of opposition from those on the right. Instead, the American right promptly leapt into teabagger mode – shrieking hysterics and demanding ideological purity. In the face of a furious and unhinged right wing, the Obama team continued to pin their hopes on cautious centrism as a way forward.
Nicholas Kristof wrote:
President Obama came into office with expectations that Superman couldn’t have met. Many on the left believed what the right feared: that Obama was an old-fashioned liberal. But the president’s cautious centrism soured the left without reassuring the right.
Kristof is absolutely right but he seems to ignore that insight in an attempt to rally the left – he begins listing the President’s accomplishments and offering a chilling argument that is supposed to rally Democrats and liberals: Read the rest of this entry »
There was a post at Daily Kos a few days back that I want to reference. But because I am obscure, useless, and a philosopher, I want to also reference Plato, Aristotle, and The Republic. As usual, I ask only that you stick with me long enough to actually read it all before you rip it apart…
Utah’s 2011 State Legislature comes to a close last night. As I was tethered to many of the pieces of immigration legislation I eventually averted my eyes to other proposed bills that are not in the best interest of the common good of Utah’s society. We are wading in the waters of murky legislation… some pending Governor Herbert’s signature and others like HB 477 signed with little regret by Governor Herbert. HB 477 seeks to limit Utah’s Open Records Law and deny access to Utah public records. Contrary to his comments in the Tribune his veto could’ve prevented HB 477 from becoming law as he needed 50 votes to override his Veto and this tyrannical bill only got 42. Thanks to all of you who made your voice be heard. The Governor made a choice and it was to NOT LISTEN to the will of the people.
Nothing this session has been spared by our political demagogues not immigration, GRAMA requests…not even the wild kitties.
Over a thousand pieces of legislation were considered by the elected members of the Utah House and Senate and many pieces of legislation considered simply appealed to the prejudices, emotions and fears of a select portion of the populous. We should ask ourselves if this is a responsible way to issue policy. Is it really a mark of a good politician to rise to power through appeals to the ethnic and nationalistic prejudices and vanities of people?
It is simply more productive for our society to consider and implement policy that is in the public’s best interest and entirely void of fear based needling. Having an ethical and transparent government is certainly in the public’s best interest and HB 477 seeks to annihilate that piece of morality that benefits Utah’s citizens. Society works BEST, when we consider and implement policies that is in the interest of ALL.
Genuine and sustainable leadership has been absent in this struggle and our country and state has increasingly witnessed a pendulum type swing from democracy into corporatocracy where policy implemented benefits a select few and HB477 only serves but a select few. This is easily demonstrated as our Governor has decided to keep prying eyes away from what we all call a HONEST DEMOCRACY. We found out last year thanks to our open records law which companies our Governor chose to give lucrative state contracts to. Which also lets the public review who the major contributors are, to our Governor and our State Legislators. By the Governor Herbert signing this bill WE can ALL see who benefits from HB-477.
I challenge each of you to amplify your voices and walk courageously into the light and demand a return to democracy. I challenge each of you to create awareness of Utah’s weakening democracy. I also challenge each of you to become delegates and encourage others to become delegates and expedite the return of OUR democracy. Lastly, I challenge each of you to not only vote but to embolden others to do the same.
Working together we can prevent further ATTACKS to our Democracy, like HB 477 from ever being conceived. It’s time to return to the people’s democracy! Please encourage Governor Herbert to Repeal HB 477.
Thanks to pressure form OneUtah readers, Carl Wimmer has recanted his rookie move and, predictably, banned me from his Facebook page.
Wing nuttery is a professional sport in Utah and relative newcomer, Carl Wimmer is trying as hard as he can to out wingnut the rest. If his recklessness is any indication, we are probably safer with Carl the Politician than Carl the Cop.
I can only assume that Carl Wimmer, as a product of Taylorsville public schools, is unfamiliar with the concept of hypocrisy.
Posted by in This Blog on April 23, 2010
It was 1960 during the Presidential election between Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy. The polls were running neck and neck and there was no clear-cut winner until one event that changed politics forever.
It was the first ever televised presidential debate. It was not so much the substance of the debate that had such a profound impact, but rather how each of them appeared on the new medium of television.
On one side you had Richard M. Nixon the sitting Vice President who sported a slight five o’clock shadow which, against the black and white picture, made him appear brooding. Along side was a young and photogenic JFK that the camera took too immediately. This event catapulted then Senator Kennedy into the White House and into history.
Fast forward to the 2008 Presidential Election, again we had cross generational candidates. Both Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama were very adept at television so there was no real advantage there like in 1960, but what made the difference for Barack Obama was just as profound if not more than television was for Nixon and Kennedy. It was the internet, and it made all the difference in the world to who now occupies the White House.
Obama’s campaign took a page out of Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign and built up an army of supporters by using social networks, blogs, and websites to raise millions from small donations solicited on the Internet.
The Republican Party must learn from this and meet the Democrats internet advantage head on. The internet is the future of politics and the party that uses it most effectively will be the ones who raise the most money and win elections.
Right now we, as Republicans, are the scruffy faced Richard Nixon and the Democrats are the JFK. It need not be that way. Conservatives and Republicans dominated the Internet till around 2006. We can take it back, and must get it back to stop Barack Obama from making this country no longer the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
Reposted from a blog article I wrote on the Emery County Republican Party website.
Karl Rove has an opinion article this week in the Wall Street Journal, History Favors Republicans in 2010, in which he laboriously explains how Republicans have an advantage in 2010. Here’s a bit:
Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states.
History will favor Republicans in 2010. Since World War II, the out-party has gained an average of 23 seats in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate in a new president’s first midterm election. Other than FDR and George W. Bush, no president has gained seats in his first midterm election in both chambers.
Since 1966, the incumbent party has lost an average of 63 state senate and 262 state house seats, and six governorships, in a president’s first midterm election. That 2010 is likely to see Republicans begin rebounding just before redistricting is one silver lining in an otherwise dismal year for the GOP.
In politics, good years follow bad years. Republicans and Democrats have experienced both during the past 15 years. A GOP comeback, while certainly possible, won’t be self-executing and automatic. It will require Republicans to be skillful at both defense (opposing Mr. Obama on some issues) and offense (creating a compelling agenda that resonates with voters). And it will require leaders to emerge who give the right public face to the GOP. None of this will be easy. All of this will be necessary.
As Republican Joe Scarborough pointed out for Mr. Rove’s benefit, it isn’t about what’s good for the party, it’s about what’s good for the country.
After this last election, I have a little more confidence in the American voter. Collectively, we seem smarter and more able to see through the political schemes and scams. Swiftboating is no longer as effective with a big part of the voting public. And we are far more savvy shoppers with selecting our leaders.
Karl Rove represents politics as usual at the end of the 20th Century–a cynical, condescending view of an electorate that is just not smart and is easily manipulated. Barack Obama and his team represent the new century and the new way of campaigning for office. Yes, they made the best use of technology. And they methodically fought the smears as fast as those emerged. But they also had a real platform of issues that Americans care about and not just issues designed to trick people and to game the political system. And most of all, they showed profound respect for American voters.