Tag: Politics

I’m sure you’ve heard by now that people are complaining that California is just a big ATM for presidential candidates.  They come in, they have a few fundraisers, they take a bunch of money, but by the time California’s primaries roll around, the candidate is already chosen.  The Californians are feeling a bit impotent, it seems.

It makes a good sound bite, I suppose.  But it’s a terrible analogy.  A better one would be paying the homeless guy to wash your windshield with a dirty rag.  You give him money, he’s theoretically doing something to help you out, but what he’s really doing is smearing the dirt around and pocketing your cash.

More importantly, it totally misses the point.  First, does it really matter if the actual vote you cast is of vital importance if your candidate wins?  I mean, let’s say Bob and Joe are fighting for the Democratic nomination.  Californian’s LOVE Bob because he’s a wind-kissing hippie, while Joe is a moderate ex-military pro-lifer.  Bob and Joe come to California, where Bob raises $30 million and Joe gets $5 million.  Bob uses that money, along with a bunch from the Sierra Club and PETA, to run a brilliant ad campaign in Iowa and a couple of other key states.  Joe blows his cash on flying from state to state, trying to get his message out there.

By the time the California primary happens, Bob has already sealed up the nomination.  Oh, no!  Californians’ votes don’t matter!  But their candidate won.  So what’s the problem?

The problem is that the Governator’s TV time has been reduced.  This seems like a big ploy for attention more than a real desire for change.  California plays a huge role in driving policy, especially about the environment.  Californians have a loud voice in politics.  They just don’t get to use it much during the presidential primaries.

Bush Expected to Name Industry Lobbyist to Head Consumer Safety Agency link via Consumerist

The recess appointment authority is intended to fill vacancies in agencies during an emergency while Congress is in recess. Presidents have used it in the past as a way to ensconce controversial, often spectacularly unqualified political insiders who would be unlikely to win Congressional approval.

They need to close this loophole. If there is an emergency that arises while Congress is in recess (That’s what, 50% of the time? 60%?), then certainly exceptions can be made in the interests of the country.

But our fearless leader wants to use a long weekend to appoint a spectacularly inappropriate canidate to an important position that has been vacant for six months. This is quite plainly a violation of the spirit of the rule. I understand that we are not bound by the spirits of rules, but wouldn’t it be nice to think that our President would hold himself to a higher standard?

And then we can examine the choice itself. “Michael Baroody, chief lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), a powerful trade group that opposes aggressive product safety regulation” is now going to be the chief of an organization meant to protect consumer safety. I think we can safely replace “the fox guarding the henhouse” with “Michael Baroody protecting consumer safety” as the default cliche.

As you may know, it’s really f’ing cold in the DC area.  NPR told me this morning that it was 9 degrees with a wind chill of -1.  That’s totally awesome.  Yesterday, I was at the gym, and while I was on the elliptical, I had my usual choice of ESPN, NBC4, and Fox News.  I generally watch ESPN, because NBC is usually showing Dr. Phil, and Fox News is just completely insane.  But during ESPN commercials, I looked over at what Neil Cavuto was talking about.  They didn’t have the closed captioning turned on, so I could just read his inflammatory headlines.  The one that made me laugh out loud was the suggestion that this cold spell disproves everything we’ve been hearing about global warming.  He then went on to talk to some PR guy from some big company, at which point the closed captioning came on, and the guy actually said that obviously global warming people will never change their opinions that it’s happening, and his reasoning for this was that they were crazy liberal Democrats.  Then he took a few uninspired shots at Al Gore, at which point I went back to ESPN heaping praise on undeserving Super Bowl MVP Peyton Manning.

The logic here is absolutely incredible.  Al Gore made a movie blaming people for global warming.  Al Gore is a Democrat.  Therefore, global warming can not be happening, and is merely a political tool of the liberals against big business.  Amazing.  Paranoia, thy name is Fox News.

George F. Will – Voting Rights Chicanery – washingtonpost.com

For Speaker Pelosi, two questions about the possible scope of your majoritarian abuse: Given your disregard of the unambiguous language and clear intent of Article I, Section 2 — which uses the word “state” eight times to designate the only entity from which a member of the House may be chosen — do you acknowledge any impediment to using your majority to give “Committee of the Whole” voting power to a delegate from, say, the AFL-CIO?

My mom pointed me to this article, wondering what my take on it was. As you all know, I’m not a big fan of Nancy Pelosi. But I think here she’s just the easy target. I wonder what George Will’s take on this would be if the five non-states that the Democrats want to give House votes to were likely to vote Republican instead of Democratic? Or, similarly, whether Pelosi and the Democrats would still be on board with letting them have a vote.

This gets back to my point that I’ve made before – too often politicians ask “What can I do for my party?” rather than “What can I do for my country?”. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are always right. Neither is always wrong, either. But dividing the country into two vaguely defined groups and then governing based on what works to the benefit of the leaders of those groups is just stupid. I wish we could stop it. I wish there was a better way of running the country.

How about automatic impeachment after six months if a representative has not made an earnest effort to compromise on at least half of the bills he or she has been asked to vote on? “I’m sorry, you plainly have your own interests in mind ahead of those of the country. Please accept your severance package of a swift kick in the butt and get the heck out of here.”

As for the issue – should DC, Guam, etc., have a House representative who can vote? Well, it’s pretty clear in the Constitution that this right is reserved for states only, so I think it’s going to have to be an amendment if it happens. As a resident-to-be of DC, I’d like a rep with a vote, but I knew I didn’t have one when I decided to move, so I can’t very well complain now that I don’t have one.

So, apparently the other human being who lives with me doesn’t agree with my post about the Democrats being big meanies who don’t want to compromise.  She says, and it’s certainly a valid point, that the Republicans have shown no interest in compromise, and the Democrats have things they need to get done.  So they should just do them.  Getting the majority is no small feat, and they need to make things happen quickly or run the risk of losing ground in the 2008 elections, where Republicans will be eager to play up any failures by the new majority.

I think that was Mike‘s point in the comments, too – they need to jump in and get some things done, and then they can worry about compromising.

On some level, I have this optimistic view that the Democrats will rush in and stand on principle, doing things the Right Way even if it means they lose, and then eventually that Right Way will win out, and the country will be better off.  Why I think that, I don’t know.  I’m not usually that optimistic.  I think I hold Democrats to a higher standard than I do Republicans.

In any event, my view has been tempered somewhat.  But I still don’t like the sound of what they’re doing.

Democrats To Start Without GOP Input – washingtonpost.com

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

Oh, wait, never mind.  It’s great to talk about bipartisanship and compromise to get elected, but then let’s just throw that out the window and pass some laws really quickly before anyone can do anything about it.  This is not how our government is supposed to work.

Don’t get me wrong, I approve of some of the laws they want to pass.  More stem cell research?  I approve.  Tightening ethics rules for lawmakers?  Sure.  Cutting interest rates on student loans?  Well, maybe.  I don’t know that cutting the interest rates is really going to help the kids who graduate with $100,000 in debt, but maybe it will.  I’ve spoken at length on the minimum wage, and how it should be tied to real, local economic indicators and shouldn’t be a tool of politicians to appeal to liberals and poor people.  Yes, it should be raised, because if you assume we need a minimum wage, we certainly need to raise it from what it is now because it hasn’t changed in, what, ten years?  At least adjust it for inflation.

I wish the Democrats would notice that they’re alienating a lot of the people who could really be helping them.  After the colossal mess that President Bush has made of absolutely everything, many people (Like me, for example) are desperate for someone to bring back a little sanity to the federal government.  The Democrats would just have to come through on some of the promises they made before the elections and I’d be happy to support them.  But they aren’t even in office yet, and they’ve already broken a big promise to compromise and keep everyone involved.

Are you trying to force me to vote Libertarian, Nancy Pelosi?  Because I’ll do it.  You watch.